State v. Ray

How courts have described this case

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

• assuming that show-up was unduly suggestive, the court concluded that identification had an independent source because the witness had seen the defendant many times over the course of three years, immediately knew who he was, and had ample opportunity to view him at the time of the crime
• assuming that show-up was unduly suggestive, the court concluded that identification had an independent source because the witness had seen the defendant many times over the course of three years, immediately knew who he was, and had ample opportunity to view him at the time of the crime
• witness identification of perpetrator had sufficient independent source because the witness had interacted with the defendant during earlier encounters and immediately knew who he was
• witness identification of perpetrator had sufficient independent source because the witness had interacted with the defendant during earlier encounters and immediately knew who he was
• identification was reliable where, among other things, the witness had encountered the defendant several times over a period of three years

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Lawson
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-12-15· cited 6×
• State v. DELATORRE-VARGAS
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-03-07

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• United States v. Crews
  Supreme Court· 1980-03-25· cited 1,151×
• State v. Classen
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1979-02-13· cited 98×
• State v. Davie
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1982-03-22· cited 12×