State v. Magana

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing the issue in a case with 51 counts of charged conduct, although ultimately determining that the defendant received sufficient pretrial notice
• rejecting the argument that certain statutes created a privacy interest in records of cell phone providers, where the records “were created in the course of the regular operations of the cell phone providers” and did not violate the statutes referenced by the defendant
• a defendant’s arguments under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution do not preserve federal Fourth Amendment arguments
• “We review a trial court’s ruling on a demurrer to a charging instrument for errors of law.”
• in the context of a demurrer, holding that numerous complex charged crimes and voluminous discovery alone, without a specific showing of need, was insufficient to allow a demurrer
• where defendant failed to identify “with particularity on appeal how he was in fact prejudiced by the lack of a pre- trial election” this court could not “say that defendant was prejudiced at all by the lack of a pretrial election” (emphasis in Magana)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).