Legal Opinion

State v. Maiden

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 20, 2008No. 051136619; A131900PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrewer, C. J.

Defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance, found during a police search of his residence. Before trial, defendant moved to exclude from evidence a crime laboratory report stating that the substance that he was charged with possessing was methamphetamine. He argued that the admission of the report would violate his confrontation rights under the Oregon and United States constitutions. The trial court denied the motion. That ruling was erroneous. See State v. Birchfield, 342 Or 624, 631-32, 157 P3d 216 (2007) (holding that the admission of a…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. State v. DavisOregon Supreme Court · 2003
  3. State v. CookOregon Supreme Court · 2006
  4. State v. BirchfieldOregon Supreme Court · 2007
  5. State v. GibsonOregon Supreme Court · 2005

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. State v. WhitmoreCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  2. State v. RobertsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  3. State v. SimonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  4. State v. BlaylockCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  5. State v. SanelleCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017

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

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

Powered by the Exa API