Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Deck

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 15, 1987No. B66-524; CA A36764Published

1Concurrence

WARDEN, J.,

specially concurring.

Because I would hold that ORS 137.090 permits witnesses to present hearsay testimony at sentencing hearings concerning circumstances which justify aggravation or mitigation of punishment but that the admission of the particular hearsay testimony here involved violated defendant’s confrontation rights under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, I specially concur.1

The majority holds “that ORS 137.090 requires that [the hearsay rules,] OEC 801 to OEC 806[,] apply to testimony of witnesses in a sentencing hearing about circumstances [concerning]…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Williams v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  3. State v. CampbellOregon Supreme Court · 1985
  4. State v. Van HooserOregon Supreme Court · 1973
  5. State Ex Rel. Russell v. JonesOregon Supreme Court · 1982

7 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