Legal Opinion

State v. Bailey

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 30, 2009No. CC 200406042A; CA A126255; SC S056152PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGillette, J.

This is one of two cases that we decide today involving a defendant’s challenge to a conviction under ORS 162.285 for “tampering with a witness.” Both cases involve the same analytical question: Can a person commit the crime of “tampering with a witness,” under ORS 162.285(1)(a), which involves inducing “a witness or a person the person believes may be called as a witness in any official proceeding” to withhold testimony, when no “official proceeding” is pending at the time of the inducement? In this case, the Court of Appeals concluded that ORS 162.285(1)(a) does not require that an official…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Emerald PUD v. PP & LOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  4. State v. BaileyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. State v. McNallyOregon Supreme Court · 2017
  2. State v. RainoldiOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Pete's Mountain Homeowners Ass'n v. Oregon Water Resources DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  4. State v. KaylorCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  5. Orlando Vasquez-Valle v. Jefferson Sessions, IIICourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018

28 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