Court of Appeals of Oregon· 4/4/2018

State v. Roberts

Citations

418 P.3d 41
291 Or. App. 124

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that an issue was preserved when the court raised the issue sua sponte, even though the defendant “did little to advance that discussion”
concluding that the defendant did not equivocally invoke his right to counsel by asking, “Do I need one?” after he was read Miranda rights
holding that the defendant had adequately preserved OEC 403 objection even though his argument to trial court primarily focused on relevance and spoke little of prejudice, where he asserted that the evidence would be 'extremely prejudicial'
explaining that the purposes of the preservation requirement include (1) appris- ing the trial court of a party’s position such that the court can consider and rule on the party’s contention, (2
explaining that an invocation is equivocal “when the suspect’s statement or request is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, one of which is that [he, she, or they are] invoking the right” at issue
explaining that an invocation is equivocal “when the suspect’s statement or request is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, one of which is that [he, she, or they are] invoking the right” at issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Edmonds, Garrett, Lagesen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

36 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.