State v. Alexander
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentRoberts, J.
I dissent from the majority opinion because I conclude that where dual sovereigns, the states of Washington and Oregon, have concurrent jurisdiction each may exercise its own sovereignty in the prosecution of crimes without violating the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
The majority opinion states "we need not decide [the question of dual sovereignty] if we can resolve the problem short of the constitutional issue.” (44 Ór App at 563.) The decision then resolves the problem by denying Oregon the right to exercise its sovereignty in the prosecution of acts in violation of its…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. WheelerSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Bartkus v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Abbate v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- United States v. LanzaSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Nielsen v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.