State v. Lyman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"This is the first case to address the exception for statements against pecuniary interest as it is formulated in OEC 804(3)(c). The Legislative Commentary to the rule explains that that kind of statement is reliable because people do not say things that are damaging to their interests, unless they believe that they are true. OEC 804(3)(c) incorporates the rationale into the rule by requiring the statement to be 'so far contrary to the declarant's ... interest ... that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless the person believed it to be true.' Compare Persad v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital, Inc. , 106 Or. App. 615 , 809 P.2d 706 (1991). "The trial court implicitly found that defendant's and Judy's finances were interrelated. It found that Judy appreciated the risk that her statements exposed defendant to penal sanctions and reasoned that people know that there may be serious consequences of a conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants. The question, however, is not merely whether she appreciated the risk, but whether a reasonable person in her position would consider the risk so great that she would not tell a lie. We conclude that, under the circumstances, the risk of pecuniary loss to Judy was too attenuated to ensure that the statements were reliable. "A reasonable person's veracity is more likely to be affected by considerations of the primary effect of statements than by consideration of indirect effects. The ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sheffield v. State

2. “"The following are not excluded by ORS 40.455 [ 6 ] if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: ".... "(c) A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made statements unless the person believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the person accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sheffield v. State

3. “'On that basis, all of the statements recited by the officer will be received as evidence in this case. On the hearsay exception where the declarant is unavailable-[OEC] 804(3)(c).'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sheffield v. State