Legal Opinion

State v. Supanchick

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 13, 2014No. CC 200525537; CA A139011; SC S060017PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKistler, J.

In 2005, the Oregon legislature added a new exception to the prohibition against the admission of hearsay evidence. Or Laws 2005, ch 458, § 1; see OEC 804(3)(g). Under that exception, a declarant’s hearsay statements are admissible against a party “who engaged in * * * wrongful conduct that was intended to [and did] cause the declarant to be unavailable as a witness.” OEC 804(3)(g). Throughout this litigation, defendant has argued that his wife’s hearsay statements do not come within the terms of that exception and that, if they do, admitting her statements violated his rights under the state…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Manson v. BrathwaiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. Napue v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  5. Mooney v. HolohanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. State v. McKelton (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  2. Couey v. AtkinsOregon Supreme Court · 2015
  3. Horton v. Oregon Health & Science UniversityOregon Supreme Court · 2016
  4. People v. PetersonIllinois Supreme Court · 2017
  5. State v. IseliOregon Supreme Court · 2020

13 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