Court of Appeals of Oregon· 6/21/2017

State v. Long

Citations

286 Or. App. 334
399 P.3d 1063
2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 812

How courts have described this case

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

reversing denial of MJOA because evidence was legally insufficient to prove “substantial pain”
explain- ing that the phrase “substantial pain” refers “both to the degree and the duration of pain subjectively experienced by a victim”
“Ordinarily, whether a victim has suffered ‘substantial pain’ is a question for the trier of fact; however, whether the evidence is sufficient to submit that question to the factfinder depends on the nature of the evidence itself.” (Emphasis omitted.)
insufficient evidence of substantial pain where “slight swelling” on the victim’s cheek and “several small scratches or bruises” were not vis- ible the next day, and the victim “squarely den[ied] that she experienced any pain”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Garrett, Lagesen, Ortega

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 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.