Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Court of Appeals of Oregon· 4/27/2005

State v. Johnson

Citations

  • 111 P.3d 784
  • 199 Or. App. 305
  • 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 534

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that ORS 132.560(l)(b)(C) is satisfied where “the joined counts are logically related, and there is a large area of overlapping proof’ between them
  • holding that join- der was not “clearly inappropriate” on the pretrial record because admitting a redacted version of the codefendant’s confession and issuing a limiting instruction at trial would sufficiently protect the defendant’s constitutional rights
  • holding that join- der was not “clearly inappropriate” on the pretrial record because admitting a redacted version of the codefendant’s confession and issuing a limiting instruction at trial would sufficiently protect the defendant’s constitutional rights
  • “Thus, the case falls within [the rule announced in Bruton v. United States, 391 US 123, 136-37, 88 S Ct 1620, 20 L Ed 2d 476 (1968
  • “[A] trial court abuses its discretion when it selects a means that is not within the range of legally acceptable options.”
  • “[A] trial court abuses its discretion when it selects a means that is not within the range of legally acceptable options.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Edmonds, Wollheim, Schuman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

15 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.