Court of Appeals of Oregon· 3/27/2013

State v. Valle

Citations

255 Or. App. 805
298 P.3d 1237
2013 WL 1233269
2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 345

How courts have described this case

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

holding that “it is error for a trial court to exclude evidence from which a jury could rea- sonably infer that the witness has a motive to testify in a certain manner”
concluding that the trial court’s exclusion of defendant’s proffered impeachment evidence was not harmless because “the jury did not have information that was relevant to whether [the witness] had motive to fabricate her allegations against defendant”
holding that the defendant laid a sufficient foundation for the admission of evidence that the victim, who was not a United States citizen, had applied for a U visa on the ground that she had been abused
holding 6 the fact of a U-Visa “was relevant impeachment evidence” and its exclusion was not 7 harmless error
applying that rule in the context of “information that 5 As we explained in Harper v. Washburn, 308 Or App 244, 249 n 1, 479 P3d 1101 (2020
declining to address the exclusion of impeachment evidence because “the record may develop differently on remand”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Armstrong, Duncan, Egan, Haselton, Nakamoto, Ortega, Schuman, Sercombe, Wollheim

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

20 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.