Legal Opinion

State v. Harris

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 18, 2013No. D100514T; A149158PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEgan, J.

This case requires us to determine whether, at a probation revocation hearing, defendant had a federal due process right to confront the lab technician who prepared two urinalysis reports indicating that defendant had consumed alcohol. The state introduced the urinalysis results through the testimony of defendant’s probation evaluator. Over defendant’s objection, the trial court concluded that the state did not need to produce the lab technician for cross-examination, and it found that defendant had violated her probation. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.

The facts are not in…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. CarrOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  3. State v. WibbensCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  4. State v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 2008
  5. State v. TerryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. PresockCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  2. State v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2021

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

Powered by the Exa API