Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Tucker

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 22, 1993No. CC 85-0025; CA A63477; SC S39088PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1DissentFadeley, J.

I dissent from the order denying the allowance of the petition for review. I would, instead, allow review and remand the case to the Court of Appeals, in the light of State v. Nielsen, 316 Or 611, 853 P2d 256 (1993), for further consideration of defendant’s confrontation clause claims concerning the statement of Pottle admitted under OEC 804(3)(c).

At defendant’s murder trial, Pottle’s friend, McManus, testified about a statement that Pottle made to him. The statement implicated both Pottle and defendant in a murder. At the time of this murder trial and McManus’ testimony, Pottle was dead and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. NielsenOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. TuckerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. WebbCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2025
  2. State v. WebbCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API