State v. Hernandez

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “evidence regard- ing whether [the witness] intended to apply for a U visa was relevant to whether she had a particular personal interest in the outcome of the case. Therefore, defendant was entitled to ask her whether she intended to apply for a U visa.”
• trial court’s exclusion of evidence not harmless, because additional admitted evidence was “qualitatively different from” the excluded evidence
• exclusion of evidence that complainant had an immigration reason for testifying against defendant was not harmless, even though there was evidence that complainant also had a financial reason for testifying against defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Nacoste
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2015-07-22· cited 10×
• State v. Crum
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2017-08-30· cited 6×
• State v. Smith
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-02-10· cited 2×
• State v. Perez-Garcia
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2018-12-05· cited 1×
• State v. Alvarez-Lopez
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-12-01· cited 1×
• State v. Shepherd
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2020-07-08
• State v. Houston
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-05-18
• State of Tennessee v. Baeho Shin
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee· 2025-08-22

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Davis
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2003-10-02· cited 666×
• State v. Affeld
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1988-11-16· cited 78×
• State v. Hubbard
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1984-09-18· cited 76×
• State v. Valle
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2013-03-27· cited 31×
• State v. Busby
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1993-01-28· cited 30×
• State v. Tyon
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-03-11· cited 9×
• State v. Strickland
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-11-20· cited 4×