State Ex Rel. Upham v. Bonebrake
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtGillette, J.
This mandamus proceeding arose out of a criminal prosecution for rape and sexual abuse. Defense counsel in the criminal case moved prior to trial for an order requiring the state to produce the complaining witness for a pretrial interview. The witness, a minor, was not in the custody of any state agency. The trial judge (defendant in this proceeding) held a hearing on the motion, during which the deputy district attorney assigned to the case informed the judge that the witness did not wish to speak to the defense counsel. The deputy district attorney further argued that his office lacked the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- State v. FreelandOregon Supreme Court · 1983
- State v. MaiOregon Supreme Court · 1982
- State Ex Rel. Gladden v. LonerganOregon Supreme Court · 1954
- State v. YorkOregon Supreme Court · 1981
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Dunwoody v. Handskill Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
- State Ex Rel. O'Leary v. LoweOregon Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. MurtaghAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. CartwrightCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
- State v. WeaverOregon Supreme Court · 2020
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.