State v. Crosby
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, C. J.
The issue in this criminal case is whether the trial court erred when it attempted to clarify a jury instruction defining the mental state required to convict defendant of the crimes at issue in this case. The Court of Appeals held that defendant failed to preserve any error because she did not object to the trial court’s original instruction defining the mental state “recklessly.” State v. Crosby, 204 Or App 75, 129 P3d 699 (2006). We reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals decision and the trial court’s judgment.
We state the facts of this case summarily.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. CunninghamOregon Supreme Court · 1994
- Bennett v. Farmers Insurance Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. BarnesOregon Supreme Court · 1999
- State v. PineOregon Supreme Court · 2003
- State v. BooneOregon Supreme Court · 1983
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- State v. TurnidgeOregon Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. OwenOregon Supreme Court · 2022
- State v. SimonovOregon Supreme Court · 2016
- Wyers v. American Medical Response Northwest, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2016
- Klutschkowski v. PeaceHealthOregon Supreme Court · 2013
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.