Court of Appeals of Oregon· 11/2/2016

State v. Nicholson

Citations

282 Or. App. 51
383 P.3d 977
2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1346

How courts have described this case

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

observing that “if the trial court discredited defendant’s testimony that she believed that the order was no longer in effect, then that alone would have established willfulness”
concluding an objection by defense counsel is not necessary for preservation when defense counsel raised the issue in closing argument, the prosecutor understood and engaged with that issue, and the court endorsed the state’s legal position
requiring a finding that the defendant acted “with knowledge” that such an act or omission was “forbid- den conduct”
reversing without remand where the trial court had already made a finding on the defendant’s subjec- tive belief
reversing without remand where the trial court had already made a finding on the defendant’s subjec- tive belief
“There is no statutory definition of ‘willfully’ for purposes of ORS 33.015(2).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Devore, Duncan, Haselton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 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.