State v. Savage
| Decision Date | 13 August 1900 |
| Citation | State v. Savage, 36 Or. 191, 61 P. 1128 (Or. 1900) |
| Parties | STATE v. SAVAGE. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Petition for rehearing. Denied.
For former opinion, see 60 P. 610.
In reviewing the decision in this cause upon defendant's petition for rehearing, we find that in referring to the testimony of Samuel Simmons the opinion improperly states that: "This witness, on his direct examination for the state, made no statement tending to show by whose authority he went to the premises of Samuel Klein to search for the money;" the bill of exceptions showing that This statement was inadvertently overlooked when the opinion was written; the writer being misled by what purported to be a copy of the witness' testimony, given on his direct examination, in which he made no statement whatever tending to show by whose direction he went to the premises of Samuel Klein to search for the money. The court having refused to permit Simmons to answer the questions propounded to him on his cross-examination, defendant's counsel called him as their witness, and on his direct examination secured the information which they sought; and this presents the question whether,...
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
-
State v. Rogers
... ... 365] Yount, supra, 467 U.S. at 1035, 104 S.Ct. at 2890 ("The relevant question is not whether the community remembered the case, but whether the jurors at [the defendant's] trial had such fixed opinions that they could not judge impartially the guilt of the defendant"); accord State v. Savage, 36 Or. 191, 203, 60 P. 610 (1900); cf. Sheppard v. Maxwell, supra, 384 U.S. at 356-61, 86 S.Ct. at 1518-22 (noting prosecution and police leaks to media of information that was not admissible or offered at trial); Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312-13, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1172-73, 3 L.Ed.2d ... ...
-
Harrold v. Territory of Oklahoma
... ... therefore admissions so obtained have no just and ... legitimate tendency to prove the facts admitted.' ... In ... State v. Novak, 109 Iowa, 717, 79 N.W. 465, the opinion ... 'The ... reason for the rule excluding involuntary confession is not ... based on ... Curtis, 109 Wis. 307, 85 N.W. 325, 327; Lake Erie & ... W.R. Co. v. Miller, 24 Ind.App. 662, 57 N.E. 596, 598; ... State v. Savage, 36 Or. 191, 60 P. 610, 615, 61 P ... 1128; Baker v. Sherman, 71 Vt. 439, 46 A. 57, 62; ... Pennsylvania Co. v. Kennard Glass & Paint Co., 59 ... ...
-
United States v. Davis
... ... Section 2254 embodies the rule that ordinarily an applicant who is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court must show that he has exhausted his available state remedies before a federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus. It is perfectly clear ... United States, 9 Cir., 1930, 43 F.2d 86, 90, certiorari denied 282 U.S. 900, 51 S.Ct. 212, 75 L.Ed. 793 ... 29 State v. Savage, 1900, 36 Or. 191, 60 P. 610, 61 P. 1128; State v. Ju Nun, 1908, 53 Or. 1, 97 P. 96, 98 P. 513 ... 30 It is the duty of the ... ...
-
United States ex rel. Leguillou v. Davis
... ... 2 V.I. 305 [1-8] Section 2254 embodies the rule that ordinarily an applicant who is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court must show that he has exhausted his available state remedies before a federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus. It is perfectly clear ... United States, 9 Cir. (1930), 43 F.2d 86, 90, certiorari denied 282 U.S. 900, 51 S. Ct. 212, 75 L. Ed. 793. 29. State v. Savage (1900) 36 Or. 191, 60 Pac. 610, 61 Pac. 1128; State v. Ju Nun (1908) 53 Or. 1, 97 Pac. 96, 98 Pac. 513. 30. It is the duty of the ... ...