Legal Opinion

Addicks v. Cupp

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 23, 1981No. 107,834, CA 19495PublishedCited by 7 opinions

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

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. State v. KoenneckeOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  3. State v. GarzaOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  4. State v. HartfieldOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Hanson v. CuppCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1971

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. GoldsbyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
  2. State v. BodenschatzCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  3. Moen v. PetersonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  4. Moen v. PetersonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  5. State v. CartwrightCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001

2 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