State v. Rose

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “I don’t have nothing to say” was an equivocal invo- cation
• con- cluding that a trial court committed reversible error in not suppressing state- ments made after the defendant’s equivocal invocation when “detectives failed to clarify [the] defendant’s statement before proceeding further”
• con- cluding that a trial court committed reversible error in not suppressing state- ments made after the defendant’s equivocal invocation when “detectives failed to clarify [the] defendant’s statement before proceeding further”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Thomas
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-09-24· cited 6×
• State v. Burgess
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2026-03-11· cited 1×
• State v. Rose
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2024-07-31

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Smith
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1990-05-10· cited 205×
• State v. Kell
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1987-03-24· cited 68×
• State v. Roberts
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2018-04-04· cited 29×
• State v. Avila-Nava
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2014-12-26· cited 28×
• State v. Nichols
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2017-03-02· cited 19×
• State v. Sanelle
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2017-09-07· cited 16×
• State v. Rose
  Clackamas County Circuit Court, Oregon· 2016-06-02· cited 1×