Legal Opinion

State v. Shifflett

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 24, 2017No. 13C43131; A156899PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOrtega, P. J.

Defendant challenges his convictions for telephonic harassment under ORS 166.090(1)(b), which provides that a telephone caller commits the crime of telephonic harassment if the caller intentionally harasses or annoys another person: “By causing such other person’s telephone to ring, knowing that the caller has been forbidden from so doing by a person exercising lawful authority over the receiving telephone [.] ” Defendant argues that, because there was no evidence that his unauthorized phone calls to the victim’s telephone caused that phone to emit an audible sound, the trial court should…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. StateOregon Supreme Court · 2001
  4. State v. CloutierOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  5. State v. Gonzalez-ValenzuelaOregon Supreme Court · 2015

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. McQueenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
  2. State v. CorciliusCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  3. State v. WakefieldCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  4. State v. BerkeyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2025
  5. State v. LeahyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2022

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API