State v. Manzella
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtGillette, J.
The issue in this criminal case is whether the state produced sufficient “other evidence” at trial to corroborate defendant’s confession for the purpose of ORS 136.425(1), which provides that, in a criminal prosecution, the state must provide “some * * * proof,” other than the defendant’s confession, “that the crime has been committed.” The Court of Appeals concluded that the state produced sufficient evidence to corroborate defendant’s confession and affirmed his conviction. State v. Manzella, 88 Or App 258, 744 P2d 1321 (1987). We affirm.
Defendant was charged with driving while suspended.…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Opper v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Smith v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Commonwealth v. FordeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
- State v. ReinhartOregon Supreme Court · 1895
- State v. CampbellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Commonwealth v. CostelloMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
- State v. HauskinsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
- State v. ChatelainOregon Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. FryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
- State v. SimonsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.