# State v. Walton

> Oregon Supreme Court · April 4, 1991 · 311 Or. 223

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558736

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. TYRONE EARL WALTON, Appellant
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 4, 1991
- **Citations:** 311 Or. 223; 809 P.2d 81; 1991 Ore. LEXIS 24
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Fadeley
- **Judges:** Hoomissen, Fadeley, Van Hoomissen
- **Cited by:** 119 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled in part, on other grounds by State v. Davis, 336 Or. 19 (2003).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558736

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- noting that the standard for our review of a trial court’s denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal was the same as that identified in Jackson

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558736. Public record. Not legal advice.