State v. Lucero

How courts have described this case

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

• when the state alleges that a defendant acted “knowingly,” the state “must prove not only that the entry was not licensed or privileged in fact, but also that the defendant was aware of that fact”
• when the state alleges that a defendant acted “knowingly,” the state “must prove not only that the entry was not licensed or privileged in fact, but also that the defendant was aware of that fact”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Merrill v. Gascon
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2017-06-28· cited 7×
• State v. Curtis
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2020-10-21· cited 3×

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Williams
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1992-03-26· cited 125×
• State Ex Rel. Mix v. Newland
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1977-02-17· cited 40×
• State v. Hartfield
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1981-03-04· cited 39×
• State v. Marbet
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1978-01-16· cited 9×
• State v. Fitch
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1975-12-08· cited 2×