Oregon Supreme Court· 1/23/2004

State v. Sparks

Citations

83 P.3d 304
336 Or. 298
2004 Ore. LEXIS 101

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that “the mere avail- ability of defendant’s offered stipulation as an alternate form of proof did not render” post-mortem photographs of the victim irrelevant
concluding that, because post-mortem photographs were relevant to prove more than the defendant stipulated, the trial court did not err in declining to limit the state to the defendant’s stipulation
explaining that a defendant’s stipulation is an alternate form of proof but does “not have the effect of making other- wise relevant evidence irrelevant”
“Nothing about the crimes charged in this case demonstrates that the precise location of the underlying crimes constitutes a material element of those crimes on which the jury must agree unanimously.”
“Nothing about the crimes charged in this case demonstrates that the precise location of the underlying crimes constitutes a material element of those crimes on which the jury must agree unanimously.”
“Defendant * * * attacks the facial constitutional- ity of the future dangerousness question, set out in ORS 163.150(1)(b)(B

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Durham

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

26 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.