Skip to main content

State v. Morgan

Citations

  • 251 Or. App. 99
  • 284 P.3d 496
  • 2012 WL 2831117
  • 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 879

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that a formal offer of proof was not required to challenge an evidentiary ruling, because the substance of excluded testimony was apparent from the context
  • holding that it was error to exclude a treatise on hearsay grounds where the offering party “intended to use the evidence for impeachment, not substantive purposes, in precisely the manner that OEC 706 contemplates”
  • an offer of proof shows whether an error \was likely to have affected the result of the case\ (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • an offer of proof shows whether an error 'was likely to have affected the result of the case' (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • “[A]n offer of proof ordinarily is required to pre- serve error when a trial court excludes testimony.”
  • “an offer of proof ordinarily is required to preserve error when a trial court excludes testimony”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brewer, Egan, Sercombe, Tempore

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

6 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.