Oregon Supreme Court· 6/5/1992

State v. Thoma

Citations

834 P.2d 1020
313 Or. 268
1992 Ore. LEXIS 110

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 trial court had erred in determining that the described corroborating circumstances were insufficient to establish the trustworthiness of the alleged alternative perpetrator’s inculpatory statements
listing as corroborating circumstance that “[t]here was no known connection between” the defendant and the purported “alternative perpetrator” declarant
identifying as a persuasive corroborating circumstance that the alleged perpetrator “repeated his confession to three different people at three different times”
“[T]o be admissible under the due process rule of Chambers, the evidence must be inadmissible under the Oregon Evidence Code.”
under analogous rule, where defendant made no showing that declarant would invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege or that incarceration prevented him from testifying, declarant was not legally unavailable
under analogous rule, where defendant made no showing that declarant would invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege or that incarceration prevented him from testifying, declarant was not legally unavailable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gillette

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

7 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.