State v. Clark

Contrary to the majority, I do not view the testimony of the accomplice-codefendant, Roner, regarding defendant’s participation with Roner in other crimes with which Roner was charged, as reversible error in the context in which it came into the case. Where defense counsel opened up the matter of Ron-er’s having turned state’s evidence in return for favorable treatment by the state on other charges, and having explored this deal extensively in cross examination, the state was entitled to show all aspects of that transaction. See State v. Rowley, 6 Or App 13, 485 P2d 1120, rev den (1971).

Nor…