State v. Shirley

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that contemporaneous objection was not required to preserve challenge to trial court action that came as a surprise and issue was one that would take time to sort out legal complexities
• concluding that it was prejudicial error for the trial court, sitting as factfinder, to obtain and read a presentence investigation on his own initiative, in camera, and without the knowledge or consent of the defendant
• concluding that it was prejudicial error for the trial court, sitting as fact factfinder, to obtain and read a presentence investigation on his own initiative, in camera, and without the knowledge or consent of the defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Keene
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-01-12· cited 14×
• State v. Jarvi
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1970-09-10· cited 9×
• State v. Burgess
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1971-04-01· cited 7×
• Hurt v. Cupp
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1971-03-25· cited 3×
• State v. Vance
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1976-02-03· cited 2×
• State v. Harris
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1980-08-04· cited 2×
• Booth and Booth
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-08-20· cited 1×

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Gregg v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1969-05-19· cited 204×
• State v. Scott
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1964-03-18· cited 33×
• State v. Anderson
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1966-01-12· cited 21×
• State v. Voshell
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1967-09-07· cited 10×
• Gresham v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1969-06-18· cited 10×
• Lenahan v. Leach
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1967-01-25· cited 10×
• State v. Spores
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1871-09-15· cited 6×