Legal Opinion

State v. White

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 9, 2006No. CC CR0001843; CA A114793; SC S53087PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtGillette, J.

In this criminal appeal, we are asked to explain the correct application of ORS 161.067, the so-called anti-merger statute, in circumstances in which a defendant is charged with multiple counts of burglary based on the same incident. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court misapplied ORS 161.067 when it denied defendant’s request to merge two convictions for first-degree burglary. State v. White, 202 Or App 1, 121 P3d 3 (2005). The state contends that the Court of Appeals is wrong and that the trial court’s decision was correct. As we shall explain, we agree with the Court of Appeals…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. CrotsleyOregon Supreme Court · 1989
  2. State v. BarrettOregon Supreme Court · 2000
  3. State v. KesslerOregon Supreme Court · 1984
  4. State v. BarnumOregon Supreme Court · 2002
  5. State v. KizerOregon Supreme Court · 1989

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. WhiteOregon Supreme Court · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API