Court of Appeals of Oregon· 7/2/2014

State v. Salas-Juarez

Citations

264 Or. App. 57
329 P.3d 805
2014 WL 2978323
2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 904

How courts have described this case

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

recognizing that the Oregon Supreme Court has “amplified” the importance of the rule prohibiting vouching
“An error does not qualify as plain error if the record contains a competing inference that the party may have had a strategic purpose for not objecting.”
“[W]hen the prosecutor stated—without objection by defendant—during closing argument that ‘[a]s [defendant] sits there, now, he is guilty. Presumption of innocence was at the beginning.’ The prosecutor misstated the law[.]”
no plain error in failing to strike police officer testimony that another witness “‘appeared to be truthful’” because the officer’s testimony included factual statements supporting the defendant’s theory that another person had stabbed the victim
where the witness’s vouching testimony was consistent with defendant’s theory of defense, the trial court was not obligated to sua sponte exclude the testimony, and thus, it was not plain error for the court to fail to do so

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Haselton, Ortega, Sercombe

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.