Oregon Supreme Court· 5/10/1990

State v. Smith

Citations

791 P.2d 836
310 Or. 1
1990 Ore. LEXIS 142

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that circumstances were not compelling, in part, because detective met with defendant in noncustodial facility “in surroundings relatively familiar to defendant”
concluding that prosecutors’s comments, during closing argument of capital sentencing proceeding, regarding victim’s last thoughts and feelings were “more gratuitous than inflammatory”
holding that the fact that the defendant was a focal suspect did not “inherently create” a compelling setting for questioning
concluding that circumstances were not compelling, in .part, because detective met with defendant in noncustodial facility fin surroundings relatively familiar to defendant’
holding that under the Fifth Amendment, Miranda warnings must be given when a person is in custody, i.e., when a person’s freedom has been significantly restrained
holding that compelling circumstances did not exist where source of the defendant’s inability to leave treatment facility was not police conduct but, rather, because leaving might violate the defendant’s probation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Peterson, Linde, Carson, Jones, Gillette, Van Hoomissen Fadeley, Fadeley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

29 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.