# State v. Maynard

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 31, 2000 · 168 Or. App. 118

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787597

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOHN HOWARD MAYNARD, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** May 31, 2000
- **Citations:** 168 Or. App. 118; 5 P.3d 1142; 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 906
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Haselton
- **Judges:** Deits, Edmonds, De Muniz, Landau, Haselton, Armstrong, Wollheim, Brewer
- **Cited by:** 19 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/9787597

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a defendant waived his appeal on a matter when the appellate 6 briefing contained no actual argument with regard to the application of the relevant 7 rule to the facts of the defendant’s case
- discussing the context of ORS § 167.065(1), which has since been repealed

## Opinion text

HASELTON, J.,
concurring.
I agree with the majority opinion that: (1) Under Stonemaris contextual analysis, ORS 167.065(l)(a) is “effects-based,” not “content-based.” (2) The “historical exception” analysis applies only to “content-based” statutes. And (3) ORS 167.065(l)(a) is unconstitutionally overbroad. Given those premises, it is unnecessary to reach, and I do not join in, the majority’s substantive discussion of whether the subject of ORS 167.065(l)(a) falls within a historically recognized exception. 1
This is not merely a matter of jurisprudential fastidiousness. I joined the majority in Maynard I in concluding that ORS 167.065(l)(a) did not fall within a historically recognized exception — as did Judge Landau. Judge Landau’s comprehensive dissent revisits that issue and presents provocative historical evidence and analysis far transcending anything we considered in Maynard 1.1 am not certain that Judge Landau’s historical conclusions are right — but I am far from certain that they are wrong. At the least, Judge Landau’s dissent highlights some very real and recurring concerns pertaining to the Robertson construct generally and the function and content of the “historically recognized exception” qualification specifically.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787597. Public record. Not legal advice.