State v. Watson, S51674
| Decision Date | 28 September 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. S51674,S51674 |
| Citation | 99 P.3d 1235,337 Or. 476 |
| Parties | STATE v. WATSON |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Petition for review denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
6 cases
-
State v. Anderson, 0612343CR.
...State v. Burns, 213 Or.App. 38, 42, 159 P.3d 1208 (2007), rev. dismissed, 345 Or. 302, 197 P.3d 1103 (2008) (quoting State v. Watson, 193 Or.App. 757, 761, 91 P.3d 765, rev. den., 337 Or. 476, 99 P.3d 1235 With those general principles in mind, we turn to the relevant statute and the allega......
-
State v. Burns
...inform the defendant of the details of the alleged crime that are necessary to be able to defend against the charge." State v. Watson, 193 Or.App. 757, 761, 91 P.3d 765, rev. den., 337 Or. 476, 99 P.3d (2004); see also State v. Wright, 167 Or.App. 297, 307, 999 P.2d 1220, adh'd to as modifi......
-
State v. Berry
...Prior cases have articulated the need for a defendant to raise the double jeopardy issue before trial. See, e.g., State v. Watson, 193 Or.App. 757, 761, 91 P.3d 765,rev. den.,337 Or. 476, 99 P.3d 1235 (2004) ( “Under ORS 135.470 and ORS 135.520, the defendant must raise the issue by a pretr......
-
State v. Fujimoto
...not limited to the elements of the crimes as pleaded in the indictment. See State v. Watson, 193 Or.App. 757, 761, 91 P.3d 765, rev. den., 337 Or. 476, 99 P.3d 1235 (2004) (“Deciding former jeopardy issues has always involved resolving factual questions.”). Thus, we reject defendant's impli......
Request a trial to view additional results