Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 10, 1994No. 90C-20365; CA A79797Published

1ConcurrenceRiggs, J.

Although I agree with the result and with much of what the majority and the other concurring opinion say, I write separately, because I believe that a substantial portion of their analysis is incorrect. In criminal cases, where the state concedes error, our review is not discretionary; our only inquiry should be whether the state’s concession is correct and furthers the ends of justice. If it does, we should accept it and adopt a result that is consistent with that concession.

I do not believe that the analysis developed in cases such as State v. Farmer, 317 Or 220, 856 P2d 623 (1993), Ailes…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State v. BrownOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  3. State v. AdamsOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  4. State v. FarmerOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  5. State v. SlawsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993

2 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