Legal Opinion

State v. Mai

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 29, 1982No. CA 19767, SC 28146PublishedCited by 69 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*271PETERSON, J.

This case involves the question whether a law which permits a trial judge to prohibit a witness from testifying because the defense failed to disclose the name of the witness prior to trial violates the defendant’s right to compulsory process under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the federal constitution. We hold that it does not.

ORS 135.805-.873 are comprehensive statutes which provide for reciprocal discovery by the prosecution and the defense. The statutes require, inter alia, the disclosure of the names and addresses of witnesses…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Chambers v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Washington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. Illinois v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Williams v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1970

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

3Cited by69 opinions

  1. State v. WyattOregon Supreme Court · 2000
  2. City of Lakewood v. PapadelisOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  3. State v. WalkerOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  4. Robert Harold FENDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert GOLDSMITH, and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
  5. State v. CoxOregon Supreme Court · 2004

64 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