Legal Opinion

State v. Ragland

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 27, 2006No. CR04-12376; A128946PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, P. J.

Defendant appeals from her conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). ORS 813.010. She contends, in part, that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine her on matters related to her invocation of her right to counsel and her right to remain silent, and further erred in allowing the prosecutor to comment indirectly in closing argument about the same matters. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with defendant and, consequently, reverse and remand.

For purposes of our review, the following material facts are undisputed. Early on the morning…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Doyle v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  5. United States v. HaleSupreme Court of the United States · 1975

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. ReinekeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  2. State v. HouseCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  3. State v. VillarCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  4. State v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  5. State v. AshbaughCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2024

3 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