Oregon Supreme Court· 6/22/2017

State v. Ryan

Citations

361 Or. 602
396 P.3d 867
2017 Ore. LEXIS 421

How courts have described this case

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

observing that “the test for proportionality under the Eighth Amendment is similar to that under Article I, section 16”
noting that “a sentencing court must consider an offender’s intellectual disability in comparing the gravity of the offense and the severity of a mandatory prison sen- tence” when conducting the “proportionality analysis”
remanding to the trial court to make factual findings in the first instance where there was an indication that the court misapprehended the import of the defendant’s argument and, as a consequence, failed to make related factual findings
“We review for legal error the trial court’s conclusion that defendant’s sentence was consti- tutional under Article I, section 16.”
evidence of a defendant’s intellectual disability is relevant when “making the proportionality comparison” under “the first Rodriguez/Buck factor”
“We review for legal error the trial court’s conclusion that defendant’s sentence was consti- tutional under Article I, section 16.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Balmer, Kistler, Walters, Landau, Brewer, Nakamoto, Baldwin

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

27 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.