Legal Opinion

State v. Chatelain

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided October 22, 2009No. CC 050633303; CA A130208; SC S056484PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBalmer, J.

We allowed review in this criminal case to determine the scope of the statutory corroboration requirement presently found in ORS 136.425(1), which we set out below. Defendant was charged with, among other things, second-degree burglary arising out of an incident where he entered a vacant house that was for sale. An eyewitness testified that defendant had entered the house with a young-looking female companion, remained inside for approximately 45 minutes, and fled when police arrived. When apprehended, defendant appeared to be under the influence of a stimulant, and police found two lighters…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Opper v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  2. State v. BrownOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  3. State v. LerchOregon Supreme Court · 1984
  4. State v. FriesOregon Supreme Court · 2008
  5. State v. HendersonOregon Supreme Court · 1947

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State v. J. N. S.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  2. State v. RamboCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  3. State v. McKnightCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  4. State v. HernandezCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  5. State v. KelleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010

11 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