Court of Appeals of Oregon· 11/23/2016

State v. House

Citations

282 Or. App. 371
385 P.3d 1099
2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1459

How courts have described this case

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

noting that the Supreme Court, in State v. Schiller-Munneman , 359 Or. 808 , 813, 377 P.3d 554 (2016
noting that in State v. Schiller-Munneman, 359 Or 808, 813, 377 P3d 554 (2016
explaining that to “determine whether it is reversible error to admit evidence of a defendant’s exercise of his or her rights, we look to the likelihood that the jury would draw a prejudicial inference”
explaining that to “determine whether it is reversible error to admit evidence of a defendant’s exercise of his or her rights, we look to the likelihood that the jury would draw a prejudicial inference”
where defendant invoked her right to silence, a prosecutor’s question as to why she did not tell her exculpatory story to the arresting officer was an improper comment on silence
where defendant invoked her right to silence, a prosecutor’s question as to why she did not tell her exculpatory story to the arresting officer was an improper comment on silence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hadlock, Lagesen, Ortega

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.