Court of Appeals of Oregon· 10/29/2008

State v. Veatch

Citations

196 P.3d 45
223 Or. App. 444
2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 1647

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that “informing the jury that a person has a right to call an attorney and that the state is ‘not even supposed to bring it up’ does not negate the inference that the person chose to exercise the right because he was conscious of his guilt”
concluding that “informing the jury that a person has a right to call an attorney and that the state is ‘not even supposed to bring it up’ does not negate the inference that the person chose to exercise the right because he was conscious of his guilt”
whether the court gives the curative instruction immediately after a prejudicial statement “is a factor in the effectiveness of a curative instruction”
“Where the context makes such an inference unlikely, the trial court does not abuse its discretion if it denies the defendant’s motion for a mistrial.”
explain- ing that, when jury’s attention is directed away from invo- cation of right, the adverse inference of guilt becomes less likely
motion for mistrial preserved where, among other facts, “defendant’s counsel waited only a short time before making the motion; indeed, he made it at the next break in the trial”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Haselton, Edmonds, Rosenblum

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

36 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.