Oregon Supreme Court· 5/4/2000

State v. Rogers

Citations

4 P.3d 1261
330 Or. 282
2000 Ore. LEXIS 254

How courts have described this case

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

holding that right to be heard in Article I, section 11, incorporates framers’ contemporaneous understanding, which did not recognize criminal defendant’s right to testify
recognizing that rights under Article I, section 11, are subject to reasonable limitations
explaining that, when only one legally correct outcome exists, decision is legal in nature and not exercise of discretion
explaining that abuse of discretion standard requires decisions to be “within the range of legally correct discretionary choices” (emphasis added)
applying that standard to review to question of whether an expert is qualified to give testimony “relative to a particular topic” (emphasis in original)
explaining that, when a trial court’s exercise of discretion rests on an incorrect legal premise, an appellate court will review that legal premise independently

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carson, Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Durham, Leeson, Riggs

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

57 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.