Oregon Supreme Court· 4/4/1991

State v. Walton

Citations

809 P.2d 81
311 Or. 223
1991 Ore. LEXIS 24

How courts have described this case

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

holding that a motion for a mistrial regarding testimony to which the trial court had sustained an objection made after two other witnesses had testified was untimely
holding that a motion for a mistrial regarding testimony to which the trial court had sustained an objection made after two other witnesses had testified was untimely
stating that a motion for a mistrial “is timely if it is made when the allegedly objectionable statements were made”
noting that the Oregon standard is identical to the standard approved in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 US 307, 319, 99 S Ct 2781, 61 L Ed 2d 560 (1979)
noting that the standard for our review of a trial court’s denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal was the same as that identified in Jackson
concluding, in a non-best evidence rule context, that the defendant failed to show that the requisite prejudice flowed from the introduction of a partial video image in lieu of the full screen image from the video

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hoomissen, Fadeley, Van Hoomissen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

56 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.