Oregon Supreme Court· 12/17/1998

State v. Stevens

Citations

970 P.2d 215
328 Or. 116
1998 Ore. LEXIS 1129

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 arguments raised on appeal were not consistent with the theory of that party’s objections before the trial court and therefore not preserved for appellate review
holding that even though the defendant made a “gen- eral reference to the seven-factor test for admissibility of scientific evidence,” his argument was unpreserved because he did not raise an issue “regarding the admissibility of [the expert’s] testimony as scientific evidence”
stating that, under those cir- cumstances, decision whether to give limiting instruction is discretionary
summarizing State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183, 188, 766 P2d 373 (1988)
In analyzing preservation of error, “an appellate court must view the facts in light of the purposes of fairness and efficiency that underlie the requirement.”
In analyzing preservation of error, \an appellate court must view the facts in light of the purposes of fairness and efficiency that underlie the requirement.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carson, Gillette, Van Hoomissen Durham

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

9 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.