Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1/12/2005

State v. Page

Citations

104 P.3d 616
197 Or. App. 72
2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 18

How courts have described this case

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

holding that the erroneous admission of co-defendant's testimonial, hearsay statement without granting the defendant an opportunity to cross-examine violated the confrontation clause, and was plain error despite no objection
holding that the erroneous admission of co-defendant's testimonial, hearsay statement without granting the defendant an opportunity to cross-examine violated the confrontation clause, and was plain error despite no objection
noting that, “[i]f the court had excluded the hearsay, the chance of a conviction would have been significantly reduced”
exercising discretion to review unpreserved Crawford objection where “the evidence against defendant was scant”
both recognizing the common-law doctrine known as “forfeiture by wrongdoing”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Haselton, Wollheim, Schuman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 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.