State v. Howell
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSloan, J.
Defendant appeals from an enhanced penalty imposed upon him as a result of habitual criminal proceedings. He claims he was wronged because the act is discriminately enforced.
The assignments of error are directed at the refusal of the trial court to hear evidence relating to the alleged discrimination. The evidence was properly refused. The same question, in different form, has been before this court before. In State v. Hicks, 1958, 213 Or 619, at 640, 325 P2d 794, cert den 359 US 917, 79 S Ct 594, 3 L Ed2d 579 (1959) the court, by Mr. Justice Brand said:
“Defendant has attempted to establish…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Oyler v. BolesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- State v. HicksOregon Supreme Court · 1958
- Tuel v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1963
- Bailleaux v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1962
- Ex Parte BomanCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1954
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. CampbellOregon Supreme Court · 1973
- Poe v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1971
- State v. HodgdonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
- LaVallee v. PerrinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1983
- State v. KnightenOregon Supreme Court · 1967
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.