# State v. Mitchell

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · August 22, 1978 · 35 Or. App. 809

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9853731

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. BILLY RAY MITCHELL, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** August 22, 1978
- **Citations:** 35 Or. App. 809; 583 P.2d 14; 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2956
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Tanzer
- **Judges:** Schwab, Thornton, Tanzer, Buttler
- **Cited by:** 7 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/9853731

## Opinion text

TANZER, J.,
specially concurring in part; concurring in part.
I specially concur in part I, but I believe it is over-analyzed (or, perhaps, under-analyzed, depending upon how one looks at it) in the sense that there is too much said. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 US 492 , 97 S Ct 711 , 50 L Ed 2d 714 (1977), is entirely dispositive. There is no need for further citation or discussion and I would say no more beyond the citation to Mathiason . Hence, I concur separately to indicate that I do not necessarily concur in the additional comments of the majority.
Particularly, I understand the necessity for, but do not join, the attempt of the majority to distinguish the troublesome language from its earlier opinion of State v. Paz, 31 Or App 851 , 572 P2d 1036 (1977) rev den 282 Or 189 (1978); whatever comfort that language gives defendant, this opinion takes away. These facts illustrate the correctness of my dissent in Paz, to which I resubscribe, which would have led the majority more directly to the same result without the necessity of wiggling away from precedential language.
I concur in part II.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9853731. Public record. Not legal advice.