Legal Opinion
State v. Crossen
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided August 10, 1972No. 20295PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSchwab, C. J.
Upon trial by jury, defendant was convicted on two counts of negligent homicide and one count of failing to remain at the scene of an accident. On appeal he contends that his statements to the police should not have been admitted into evidence, because defendant was not advised of his rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 86 S Ct 1602, 16 L Ed 2d 694, 10 ALR3d 974 (1966), before making the statements in question.
The charges against defendant arose out of an automobile accident which was investigated by three police officers. Upon arriving at the scene of the accident, the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Escobedo v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Hoffa v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- People v. Rodney P.(Anonymous)New York Court of Appeals · 1967
- State v. NeelyOregon Supreme Court · 1965
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- State v. PazCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
- State v. HodgesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1977
- State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. for Lane County v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1974
- State v. AndersonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1976
- State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. SandersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.