Legal Opinion

State v. Viranond

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 16, 2009No. CCC040694CR; CA A127918; SC S056338, S057096PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGillette, P. J.

The principal issue in this criminal case is whether the trial court erred in permitting a police officer, who had observed the testimony of several prosecution witnesses, to testify that the testimony of two witnesses at trial was “consistent” with the statements that those witnesses had given to police officers when they were interviewed before the trial. Defendant contends that such testimony constitutes an impermissible comment by one witness on the credibility of another, and that the Court of Appeals therefore erred in not reversing his conviction on that ground. State v. Viranond, 221…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Oregon v. IceSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. State v. MiddletonOregon Supreme Court · 1983
  3. State v. MilbradtOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  4. State v. IceOregon Supreme Court · 2007
  5. State v. LotchesOregon Supreme Court · 2000

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. InmanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  2. State v. BlackOregon Supreme Court · 2019
  3. State v. BeauvaisOregon Supreme Court · 2015
  4. State v. Lopez-MinjarezCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  5. State v. McDonaldSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2011

6 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