Court of Appeals of Oregon· 6/20/2012

State v. Reynolds

Citations

250 Or. App. 516
280 P.3d 1046
2012 WL 2335907
2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 775

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that it was appropriate to exercise discretion to correct plain error relating to sufficiency of the evidence despite the fact that the defendant failed to preserve the error when he only made a general motion for judgment of acquittal
discussing additional factors used to determine whether to exercise discretion to reach a plain error
exercising discretion to correct plain error because entry of a criminal conviction without sufficient proof is a grave error of constitutional magnitude
exercising discretion to correct unpreserved claim of error where error was grave and “of constitutional magnitude”
exercising discretion to correct plain error because entry of a criminal conviction without sufficient proof is a grave error of constitutional magnitude
discussing exercise of discretion to reverse conviction when defendant effectively failed to move for judgment of acquittal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Armstrong, Brewer, Haselton, Nakamoto, Ortega, Schuman, Sercombe, Wollheim

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

43 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

43 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.