Oregon Supreme Court· 3/21/1996

State v. Wright

Citations

913 P.2d 321
323 Or. 8
1996 Ore. LEXIS 29

How courts have described this case

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

deferring to the trial judge’s discretion in denying a motion for a mistrial
stating that helpfulness “subsumes” a relevance inquiry
offer of proof was sufficient even though it did not identify proposed witnesses with specificity, because content of proposed testimony was made clear
testimony of defendant's penalty phase witnesses that, in their personal opinion, defendant should not be sentenced to death, is not even minimally related to defendant's character or record or circumstances of offense
“[T]he trial court’s choice not to declare a mistrial but, instead, to give a cautionary instruction, falls within the permissible range of choices committed to the court’s discretion.”
the trial court “is in the best position to assess the impact of the complained-of incident”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carson, C.J., Gillette, Fadeley, Unis, Graber, and Durham, Jj., and Deits, J. Pro Tem

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

27 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.