Legal Opinion

State v. Haynes

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 13, 1927PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, C. J.

The defendant and one Ackermann were indicted for the unlawful possession of a still and still worm, without having the same registered. Ackermann pleaded guilty and the defendant Haynes pleaded not guilty. Several days prior thereto the case had been set for trial on February 16, 1926. The defendant had retained Frank Dick as his attorney, who, discovering early on the date of the trial that the codefendant, who was to appear as a witness for the state, was intending to change his testimony, withdrew from the defense by leave of court. The court then granted the defendant an hour in which to…

2Cited by10 opinions

  1. State v. ErwinUtah Supreme Court · 1941
  2. State v. BroadhurstOregon Supreme Court · 1948
  3. State v. NelsonOregon Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Rhodes v. HarwoodOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  5. State v. CarceranoOregon Supreme Court · 1964

5 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