Skip to main content

State v. Wright

Citations

  • 999 P.2d 1220
  • 167 Or. App. 297
  • 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 789

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that the availability of pretrial criminal discovery is generally sufficient to cure imprecision in charging instruments
  • concluding that because the crimes alleged were “rel- atively simple” and “not complex or open-ended, as in Sanders,” it was likely that pretrial discovery would “dispel any uncertainty as to the particular bases of the charges” created by the charging instrument
  • “In short, this is not a case where the discovery is unlikely to inform the defendant of the specific criminal conduct the state intends to prove.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: De Muniz, Presiding Judge, and Haselton and Wollheim, Judges

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

18 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.