Summary
recognizing that trial counsel's duty to object to potentially prejudicial conduct depends largely on whether that conduct does, in fact, impair the defendant's fair-trial rights
Summary of this case from Maney v. AngelozziOpinion
1997.
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
Petitions for Review
Oregon Supreme Court
Jan 1, 1997
325 Or. 621 (Or. 1997)
Summaries of
Petitions for Review
Oregon Supreme Court
Jan 1, 1997
325 Or. 621 (Or. 1997)
recognizing that trial counsel's duty to object to potentially prejudicial conduct depends largely on whether that conduct does, in fact, impair the defendant's fair-trial rights
Summary of this case from Maney v. Angelozziremanding for resentencing where multiple firearm sentences affected the length of imprisonment
Summary of this case from State v. Diaz-GuillenCase details for
Petitions for Review
Case Details
Full title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Jan 1, 1997
Citations
325 Or. 621 (Or. 1997)
Citing Cases
State v. Stanley
Defendant does not contend on appeal that the office' conduct in that regard effected an unlawful search or…
Wright v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.That coverage, however denominated, is, in fact, quintessential UIM coverage. See generally Vega v. Farmers…