Court of Appeals of Oregon· 4/27/2022

State v. Murphy

Citations

319 Or. App. 330
510 P.3d 269

How courts have described this case

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

“If a witness unambiguously vouched, it is plain error not to have stricken the testimony, even absent an objection.”
gravity of harm in plain error posture may be assessed by whether there was little likelihood that error affected verdict
“[I]f a witness’s testimony [is] ambiguous, * * * there is no plain error in not having stricken the testimony sua sponte[.]”
“[I]f a witness’s testimony was ambiguous—such that the witness may or may not have been vouching—there is no plain error in not having stricken the testimony sua sponte, in part because the lack of objection prevented clarification of the testimony.”
“[I]f a witness’s testimony was ambiguous—such that the witness may or may not have been vouching—there is no plain error in not having stricken the testimony sua sponte, in part because the lack of objection prevented clarification of the testimony.”
describing more generally our approach to plain-error vouching arguments

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Aoyagi

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.