State v. Hutton
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
| Citation | State v. Hutton, 353 Or 533, 300 P3d 1222 (Or. 2013) |
| Decision Date | 25 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | NOS. S060567,A142745,S. S060567 |
| Parties | State v. Dennis Brian Hutton |
250 Or.App. 105, 279 P.3d 240. Petitioner on review's petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and this case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of State v. Pitt, 352 Or. 566, 293 P.3d 1002 (2012).
ALLOWED.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
2 cases
-
State v. Hutton
...for reconsideration in light of that court's subsequent decision in State v. Pitt, 352 Or. 566, 293 P.3d 1002 (2012). State v. Hutton, 353 Or. 533, 300 P.3d 1222 (2013). On remand, we conclude that, in light of Pitt and other later-decided cases, the trial court erred in unconditionally adm......
-
State v. Williams
... ... at 81, 871 P.2d 482. We concluded that a jury could infer from the defendant's possession of the pornographic magazine that he intended to touch the victim's genital area for a sexual purpose. Id. at 80–81, 871 P.2d 482. Nor is this a case like State v. Hutton, 250 Or.App. 105, 279 P.3d 240 (2012), vac'd and rem'd, 353 Or. 533, 300 P.3d 1222 (2013), in which we explained that there are circumstances in which intent might be at issue despite a defendant's denial that the charged act occurred. 2. We note that the two conditional ... ...
