Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Mai

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 19, 1981No. Nos. T 80 4-1915, T 80 4-1916, CA 19767Published

1DissentVan Hoomissen, J.

After failing to comply with the pretrial discovery provisions of ORS 135.835, defendant’s attorney told two defense witnesses not to talk to the prosecutor. The trial court ruled that one of those witnesses could not testify. Defendant was convicted. On appeal he contends the trial court erred, because (1) no sanction was permissible since defense counsel’s misconduct caused the state no prejudice, and (2) this ruling violated his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process.1

*341The majority holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the witness to testify and…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Washington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. United States v. NoblesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Wardius v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. State v. WolfeOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  5. State Ex Rel. Automotive Emporium, Inc. v. MurchisonOregon Supreme Court · 1980

13 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