Court of Appeals of Oregon· 4/17/2024

State v. Wellington

Citations

548 P.3d 146
332 Or. App. 44

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 “challenged testimony was not unambiguously vouching and that the legal point, therefore, is not obvious and is reasonably in dispute” and therefore the error is not plain
concluding that, when viewed in context, “the chal- lenged testimony was not unambiguously vouching and that the legal point, therefore, is not obvious and is reasonably in dispute”
concluding that the “challenged testimony was not unambiguously vouching and that the legal point, therefore, is not obvious and is reasonably in dispute” and therefore the error is not plain
assuming that a jury has followed a court’s curative instruction unless there is an overwhelm- ing probability that the jury was incapable of doing so
noting that a prosecutor’s comments are improper when they are viewed by the jury as “an invitation to base its verdict on the leniency of the charging process”
noting that a prosecutor’s comments are improper when they are viewed by the jury as “an invitation to base its verdict on the leniency of the charging process”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

16 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.