State v. Ezell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• relying on fact that trial court “crafted an instruction that limited the jury’s consid- eration of [prior bad acts] evidence strictly to determining whether defendant had a sexual interest in children, which is a permitted propensity use according to Williams”
• relying on fact that trial court “crafted an instruction that limited the jury’s consid- eration of [prior bad acts] evidence strictly to determining whether defendant had a sexual interest in children, which is a permitted propensity use according to Williams”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Estrada-Vargas
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-08-06· cited 6×
• State v. Ezell
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2023-06-14

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• United States v. Fred James Lemay, III
  Ninth Circuit· 2001-08-09· cited 330×
• State v. Flores Ramos
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2020-12-24· cited 218×
• State v. Titus
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1999-05-20· cited 143×
• State v. Ulery
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2020-06-04· cited 143×
• State v. Williams
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2015-03-18· cited 115×
• State v. Baughman
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2017-04-27· cited 91×
• State v. Kincheloe
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2020-12-24· cited 67×
• State v. Cox
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2004-10-14· cited 53×
• State v. Sparks
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2004-01-23· cited 50×
• State v. Jackson
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2021-11-17· cited 31×
• State v. Hess
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2007-05-10· cited 28×
• State v. Warren
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2018-05-02· cited 15×
• State v. Travis
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-06-23· cited 15×
• State v. Powers
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2023-01-05· cited 9×
• State v. Champagne
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2023-03-29· cited 7×