Oregon Supreme Court· 3/10/2011

State v. Stokes

Citations

248 P.3d 953
350 Or. 44
2011 Ore. LEXIS 167

How courts have described this case

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

explaining that “[Recklessness or even negligence on the government’s part” may be weighed in due-process balancing
explaining that the state “closed the case based on a conclusion that [the] defendant’s California sentence minimized his threat and, in light of that, pursuing defendant’s prosecution in Oregon was not a good use of public resources”
rely- ing on the minority test as established in the Ninth and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeal
actual prejudice from lost evidence requires some showing that the lost evi- dence was “more likely to help rather than hurt defendant’s case”
in a case concerning pre-indictment delay, the destruction of a rape kit and other evidence did not demonstrate actual prejudice where the quality of the evidence was unknown

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: De Muniz, Chief Justice, and Durham, Balmer, Kistler, Walters, and Linder, Justices

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

32 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.