Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Harshman

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 16, 1983No. 6170, 6173, 6174, 6180 and 6785 CA A23239 (Control), CA A23240Published

1Concurrence

*719WARDEN, J.,

specially concurring.

Because I agree with the majority that the trial court erred in failing to impose sanctions for the state’s failure to provide discovery as required by ORS 135.865, I concur in the decision to reverse and remand for a new trial and a new probation revocation hearing. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that admitting evidence of other crimes, specifically the Blue Bucket sale, was not error and, therefore, dissent from that part of the opinion.

In his first assignment, defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. ManriqueOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  2. State v. HembreeOregon Supreme Court · 1909
  3. State v. LehmannCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1971
  4. State v. SackOregon Supreme Court · 1957
  5. State v. EacretCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979

2 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