State v. West

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, on the facts in that case, documentary evidence was equivalent to video evidence
• explaining that “there is nothing in the record that discloses how [a] video would be stronger and more sat- isfactory” evidence than the documentary evidence that the state had submitted at trial
• evidence in the police’s possession was reasonably available to the district attorney and thus was within the power of the state to offer at trial
• in theft prosecution, a video recording of the defendant at the scene, which the state had not produced, was not necessarily stronger evidence than the documentary and testamentary evidence that the state offered
• quot- ing State v. McDonnell, 313 Or 478, 500, 837 P2d 941 (1992)
• “In this case, there is nothing in the record that discloses how the video would be stronger and more satisfactory or could give rise to an inference that the evidence was adverse to the state.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Palacios-Romero
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-06-29· cited 6×
• State v. Wildeboer
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-03-05· cited 3×
• State v. Franzen
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-02-05

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Brady v. Maryland
  Supreme Court· 1963-05-13· cited 33,902×
• Kyles v. Whitley
  Supreme Court· 1995-04-19· cited 6,003×
• State v. McDonnell
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1992-07-09· cited 70×
• Ireland v. Mitchell
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1961-03-01· cited 40×
• State v. Hendershott
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1994-12-07· cited 12×
• State v. McNassar
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1986-01-08· cited 11×
• State v. West
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1996-12-24· cited 10×
• State v. Egeland
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-01-29· cited 7×