State v. Jackson

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding defendant’s conduct was necessary where defendant’s testimony indicated the inciting encoun- ter was aggressive, even where the other participant’s testi- mony did not
• noting that it is for the jury to decide what part of inconsis- tent testimony to credit, if any, and that no legal principle compels a factfinder to believe a defendant’s most damaging statements or disbelieve supportive testimony
• “[C]onsidering the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction means that we do not attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence * * *. If the testimony provides evidence to support giving the instruc- tion, that evidence is considered in the analysis.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Jackson
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2024-08-21
• State v. Cinencio-Gonzalez
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-03-12
• State v. Johnson
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-11-19

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Brown
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1988-09-29· cited 45×
• Henderson-Rubio v. May Department Stores Co.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1981-08-24· cited 29×
• State v. Clowdus
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2023-05-17· cited 9×
• State v. Paul
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2017-12-20· cited 8×
• State v. Phillips
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-01-26· cited 8×
• State v. Costanzo
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1988-12-21· cited 6×