Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Carroll

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 18, 1968Published

1DissentDenecke, J.

I dissent for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice Sloan’s dissenting opinion and desire to state an additional ground for my dissent.

The defendant was charged with cashing a forged check on November twenty-ninth through the agency of his accomplice, Miss Nissen. The accomplice testified that she also tried to cash a forged check for the defendant on November sixteenth. The defendant testified that he was not with Miss Nissen on November sixteenth. The majority has decided that the falsity of defendant’s testimony of what transpired on November sixteenth is sufficient evidence to corroborate the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. LaneUtah Supreme Court · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API