Legal Opinion

State v. Dahlen

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 27, 2006No. 0310-35107, 0310-35125 A124402 (Control), A124403PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

In our former opinion in this case, State v. Dahlen, 209 Or App 110, 146 P3d 359 (2006), we concluded that the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of statements that he made to police during interrogation after he unequivocally requested to speak with counsel. We reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. The state petitions for reconsideration of our disposition and requests that the case be reversed and remanded for farther proceedings rather than specifically for a new trial. The state notes that defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to certain…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. DahlenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  2. State v. TannehillOregon Supreme Court · 2006

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. ApplebySupreme Court of Kansas · 2009
  2. State v. HolcombCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
  3. State v. RobertsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  4. State v. SanelleCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  5. State v. Cruz-RenteriaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012

6 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