# Elam v. Soares

> Oregon Supreme Court · April 18, 1978 · 282 Or. 93

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9572456

## Case

- **Full name:** ELAM, Appellant, v. SOARES, Respondent
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 18, 1978
- **Citations:** 282 Or. 93; 577 P.2d 1336; 1978 Ore. LEXIS 835
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bryson
- **Judges:** Tongue, Howell, Lent, Bryson
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9572456

## Opinion text

BRYSON, J.,
dissenting.
The evidence received in this case falls within the rule proposed by the dissent of Chief Justice O’Connell in State v. Derryberry, 270 Or 482, 492 , 528 P2d 1034 (1974), and would have been admissible under that dissent. I joined in the dissent in State v. Derryberry, *107 supra. Also, in my concurring opinion in Rhodes v. Harwood, 273 Or 903 , 544 P2d 147 (1975), I again asserted that it was my opinion that this court should adopt Rule 63(1) of the Proposed Uniform Rules of Evidence.
In this case, the defendant’s statements, included in the writing which was received in evidence, were also testified to by him at trial. It would seem to me that the admission of the writing would be merely cumulative and, therefore, not prejudicial error. Under these circumstances, I do not feel that we can "presume” that the receiving of the defendant’s statement in evidence was prejudicial error. For these reasons, I would affirm the trial court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9572456. Public record. Not legal advice.