Addicks v. Cupp
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, P. J.
Petitioner appeals denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for murder. He alleged his rights to due process of law and substantial fairness were violated in the following particulars:
1. The state failed to disclose exculpatory evidence of "substantial significance”;
2. The police authorities were guilty of improper conduct and procedures in investigating the crime;
3. The jury was given "erroneous and unlawful” jury instructions; and
4. Petitioner was denied a "fair trial and the right to efficient [sic] counsel.”
We summarize only those facts of the crime necessary…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- State v. KoenneckeOregon Supreme Court · 1976
- State v. GarzaOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- State v. HartfieldOregon Supreme Court · 1981
- Hanson v. CuppCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1971
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. GoldsbyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
- State v. BodenschatzCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
- Moen v. PetersonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
- Moen v. PetersonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
- State v. CartwrightCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.