State v. Waterhouse
Oregon Supreme Court
1DissentWarner, J.
The majority opinion clings to a common-law rule which, in my opinion, is prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant in a trial upon the merits of the principal crime charged. To say no constitutional rights are invaded begs the question and ignores the impact upon a jury who at the very outset of the case *444are informed that the defendant has been convicted of misdemeanors or felonies of a sexual implication. To ignore the reaction conjured in the minds of the average juror by thus cataloging such crimes at that juncture is to deny the patterns of human experience. The following…
2Cases cited49 opinions
- People v. GowaskyNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Massey v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1922
- Remus v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1923
- Noonan v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1938
- People v. ReeseNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.