Skip to main content

State v. Huffman

Citations

  • 672 P.2d 1351
  • 65 Or. App. 594
  • 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 3916

How courts have described this case

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

  • rejecting argument that outrageous governmental conduct violated compulsory process guarantee of Article I, section 11
  • “Defendant’s due process argument derives from a claimed violation of the Compulsory Process Clauses and the analysis is the same.”
  • trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence that the defendant had threatened a witness for the state, because (1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Richardson, Joseph, Newman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

17 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.