# State v. Smith

> Oregon Supreme Court · May 10, 1990 · 310 Or. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9574029

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. CHARLES FRANKLIN SMITH, Appellant
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 10, 1990
- **Citations:** 310 Or. 1; 791 P.2d 836; 1990 Ore. LEXIS 142
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Fadeley
- **Judges:** Peterson, Linde, Carson, Jones, Gillette, Van Hoomissen Fadeley, Fadeley
- **Cited by:** 166 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/9574029

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the defendant had not invoked his right to remain silent when he said, “I have nothing to say” in response to a hypothet- ical description of how he might have killed his wife, and the defendant instead “merely exercised his right to answer some questions and n…
- holding that a defendant had not invoked his right to remain silent when, in response to a particular question, he said, “I have nothing to say”; noting, instead, that the defendant “merely exercised his right to answer some questions and not to answer others”
- stating that, for the exclusionary rule to apply to the actions of an informant, the state must be “involved to a sufficient extent in initiating, planning, controlling or supporting the informant’s activities” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)
- holding that compelling circumstances did not exist where source of the defendant’s inability to leave treatment facility was not police conduct but, rather, because leaving might violate the defendant’s probation
- concluding that prosecutors’s comments, during closing argument of capital sentencing proceeding, regarding victim’s last thoughts and feelings were “more gratuitous than inflammatory”

## Opinion text

FADELEY, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinions in State v. Moen, 309 Or 45 , 786 P2d 111 (1990) and State v. Wagner (II), 309 Or 5 , 786 P2d 93 (1990). I believe the court should assess and fix final punishment now under the statute rather than sending this case back to the trial court for a further penalty phase trial which will lead to further delay and may lead to further appeals costly to the public.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9574029. Public record. Not legal advice.