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
How later courts described this case
- 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
- 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”
- federal constitutional error is not grounds for reversal if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; under Oregon Constitution, error is harmless if there is *665 substantial and convincing evidence of guilt and little likelihood that the error affected the verdict
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part, on other grounds by State v. Davis, 336 Or. 19 (2003)
311 Or 223, 247-48 , 809 P2d 81 (1991), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 30 , 77 P3d 1111
The opinion
FADELEY, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in State v. Moen, 309 Or 45, 102-04 , 786 P2d 111 (1990) (Fadeley, J., dissenting). Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 US 302 , 109 S Ct 2934 , 106 L Ed 2d 256 (1989), that court, in Wagner v. Oregon, 492 US 914 , 109 S Ct 3235 , 106 L Ed 2d 583 (1989), vacated an Oregon death penalty sentence, because of inadequacy in Oregon’s statute providing the method whereby a jury determines the sentence to be imposed.
That statute was proposed by the initiative process and adopted by a vote in 1984. On remand of Wagner v. Oregon by the United States Supreme Court, the Oregon Supreme Court reacted by a majority decision to save the initiated statute by adding a 100-word amendment. See State v. Moen, supra, 309 Or at 102-04 (dissenting opinion).
I continue to dissent from the decision of the majority to make an after-the-fact addition to the statute that the people, by their vote adopting the statute, did not put there.