Court of Appeals of Oregon· 5/22/2019

State v. Hunt

Citations

442 P.3d 232
297 Or. App. 597

How courts have described this case

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

noting that “[i]nstructing the jury to consider the testimony ‘irrelevant’ to their deliberations is not enough”
explaining that the federal and state constitutions guarantee criminal suspects the right against compelled self-incrimination and that “[t]hose provisions prohibit the prosecution from drawing the jury’s attention to the defen- dant’s exercise of this right”
finding a reference prejudicial under analogous circumstances where the ref- erence was not incidental but the primary focus of the pros- ecutor’s line of questioning
“For a trial to be fair, the verdict must be based on the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
A reference to the exercise of a constitutional right Nonprecedential Memo Op: 336 Or App 489 (2024) 491 “may not be prejudicial if it is incidental to some other point that diverts the jury’s focus * * * or it is ambiguous and iso- lated without any elaboration[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Devore, James, Lagesen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

12 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.