Carleton and Carleton
Under OAR 137-050-0715(1), (2) and (4)(f), accelerated depreciation may be excluded from calculation of a party's income when determining support; when neither party presents evidence regarding what portion of depreciation expenses are accelerated, and the court points this out with opportunity to clarify, the court may properly exclude the entire amount if the support formula is properly applied.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dept. of Human Services v. A. H.
Where the cumulative negative effects of a jurisdictional order entered on legally insufficient evidence are substantial enough, a motion to dismiss for mootness may be denied.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. B. K. F.
When a parent successfully challenges a portion of a jurisdictional judgment over a child, the unchallenged portion may remain valid to uphold jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Devin Oil Co., Inc. v. Morrow County
Under ORS 197.830(3), a person or party adversely affected by a land use decision that is made without a public hearing has standing to appeal that decision to LUBA. A party is adversely affected by such a decision only when the allowed land use impinges upon that party’s property or personal interests.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Emrys v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon
If two parties enter an agreement to insure a property, but identify the wrong property, an antecedent agreement to reform a contract has been met.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Greenwood Products, Inc. v. Greenwood Forest Products, Inc.
On Defendants Greenwood Forest Products, Inc. appeal, its seventh assignment of error regarding expert expenses was remanded to the court for an award of reasonable expert expenses.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Hamilton v. SAIF
The issue of whether a request for hearing is timely is a jurisdictional issue and must be decided by the Worker's Compensation Board as a threshold issue if presented as an issue in the original claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Heng-Nguyen v. Tigard-Tualatin School District
"A defendant receives actual notice under ORS 30.275(6) when (1) a communication informs the defendant of the time, place, and circumstances of the incident that gave rise to the claim that the plaintiff ultimately asserts and (2) the communication would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the plaintiff intends to assert a claim."
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
J.D. v. Klaptch
Whether a denial of a continuance is improper depends on the particular circumstances of the case and the reasons presented to the court at the time the request is denied.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Marquez v. Premo
A denial of post-conviction relief must (1) identify the claims for relief that the court considered and make separate rulings on each claim, (2) declare, with regard to each claim, whether the denial is based on a petitioner's failure to utilize or follow available state procedures or a failure to establish the merits of the claim, and (3) make the legal bases for denial of relief apparent (which can be established through oral findings).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Merritt and Alter
A claim that one party to dissolution overpaid child support to the other will fail without proper documentation of such overpayment.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Miller v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
The Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision’s authority over a parolee extends for the remainder of the parolee’s sentence unless and until the Board affirmatively discharges the parolee from parole supervision.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Portland Police Assn. v. City of Portland
Oregon appellate court decisions interpreting ORS 243.706(1) hold that “the public policy analysis must be directed at the award, not the [underlying] conduct”; therefore, the board is “not to substitute [its] judgment for the arbitrator’s determination of whether the public employee engaged in the conduct resulting in discipline.” As a condition of enforceability, any arbitration award that orders the reinstatement of a public employee or otherwise relieves the public employee of responsibility for misconduct shall comply with public policy requirements as clearly defined in statutes or judicial decisions including but not limited to policies respecting sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, unjustified and egregious use of physical or deadly force and serious criminal misconduct, related to work.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Qwest Corp. v. City of Portland
Under ORS 221.515(1), in order to qualify as a privilege tax, a municipality must tax a telecommunications carrier that actually uses municipal rights-of-way in order to deliver services.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Rivas-Valles v. Board of Parole
The 60-day deadline set forth in ORS 144.335(4) is only for the filing of a petition for review and not for the service of said petition given that the language of the statute only explicitly refers to the petition in regards to the deadline.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Sedgwick Claims Management Services v. Norwood
Employee’s injuries sustained while taking a document to the post office for Employer do not fall under the exception to worker’s compensation compensability for recreational or social activities “primarily for the worker’s personal pleasure.”
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
SIF Energy, LLC v. Dept. of Energy
ORS 469.215(4) required the Department of Energy to certify up to 110% of the actual costs of an action qualifying for a business energy tax credit. The Oregon legislature spoke clearly on the matter and did not leave room for agency interpretation otherwise.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Daly
"The appropriate time to challenge the existence of the conditions precedent to the issuance of the citation is in a pretrial motion aimed at the efficacy of the charging instrument."
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Fetzer
When a party fails to object to testimony at trial, the argument may not be preserved on appeal, even where the party successfully moved to exclude the substantive evidence upon which the testimony is based.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Gaines
When multiple theories of criminal liability are presented by the state, the trial court must give a jury concurrence instruction, requiring at least 10 jurors to agree on the theory of liability before a defendant can be convicted.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Gallo
Under ORS 137.540(2), special conditions of probation are allowed, but cannot be more restrictive than necessary to achieve the goals of probation. A ban on the internet is reasonable for a defendant convicted of sexual abuse after posing as a teenager on the internet and luring an underage girl to a park where he sexually abused her.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Inman
In general, a detective's testimony that witness statements remained consistent between interviews is not improper vouching testimony, where the detective is not speculating on the truthfulness of the witness statements.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Jones
Evidence of a nonconsensual warrantless search of a defendant's pocket and the subsequent search of a cigarette pack found in the pocket that did not fall under an exception to Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution should have been suppressed.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Jones
Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, discovery of an outstanding warrant does not cure an unlawful police stop. Courts must consider three factors to determine whether the evidence obtained from the unlawful stop was sufficiently attenuated from the stop: “(1) the temporal proximity between unlawful police conduct and the discovery of the challenged evidence; (2) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (3) particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Juarez-Hernandez
Trial court committed plain error in requiring Defendant to pay attorney fees without first considering Defendant’s ability to pay.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. L. M. W.
Juvenile court had the authority to either amend or dismiss youth’s delinquency petition.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. T.Q.N.
Juvenile court had the authority under ORS 419C.261 to rule on youth’s motion for conditional postponement.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Taylor
The Confrontation Clause of Article I, section 11, requires the court to allow a defendant to cross-examine a complaining witness about past accusations: (1) when the witness has recanted the accusations; (2) when the defendant demonstrates that those accusations were false; or (3) there is some evidence that the victim has made prior accusations that were false, unless the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice, confusion, embarrassment or delay. “A trial court has authority to preclude [cross-examination based on the third category] when it reasonably determines that exploration of the previous incident would essentially require an unhelpful trial within a trial.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Thompson
When an error is unpreserved, a court will address it only if (1) the error is one “of law,” (2) the point of law is “apparent,” and (3) the error appears “on the face of the record.” If the state seeks to hold a defendant liable either as the principal or as an aider and abettor and if a party requests an appropriate instruction, the trial court should instruct the jury that at least 10 jurors must agree on each legislatively defined element necessary to find the defendant liable under one theory or the other
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Williams
Under ORS 162.285(1)(a), tampering with a witness, at the time of an offender’s knowing or intended inducement of a potential witness, an offender’s statement’s must reflect, either directly or by fair inference, that the offender reasonably and specifically believes that the victim will be called to testify at an official proceeding.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Wixom
DHS records are confidential and, when unrelated to the issue in question, are not subject to in camera review.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Tomlinson v. Metropolitan Pediatrics, LLC
Parents of a child medical care providers failed to diagnose with a genetic condition may have a legally cognizable claim of negligence against the providers, where the parents conceived another child with the same genetic condition as the first, because providers failed to give due care to the parents' legally protected interest in making an informed reproductive decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Vector Marketing Corp. v. Employment Dept.
Incentive payments for the number of demonstrations performed by Vector’s salespeople are not “commissions” and are therefore not exempt from unemployment insurance tax.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Washington County v. Querbach
In condemnation proceedings, ORS chapter 35 governs over statutory filing requirements listed in ORCP 9 or 17, so that an Offer of Compromise that is unsigned and unfiled when the county makes it, is considered “effective to sever [a] defendant’s entitlement to attorney fees and costs under ORS 35.300(4).”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Hutchings v. Amerigas Propane
Under ORS 656.005(25)(c), a worker’s preexisting condition makes him “susceptible” to injury if the condition increases the likelihood that the affected body part will be injured by some other action or process but does not actively contribute to damaging the body part.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Nacoste v. Halton Co.
ORS 656.273 does not apply to consequential conditions because those conditions are new medical conditions and distinct from the underlying condition.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Corbin
Any error by a trial court if a party does not request a Leistiko instruction and the trial court fails to provide one is not a plain error. Moreover, a trial court need not follow the precise steps of the Mayfield analysis, the court still meets the requirements of Mayfield so long as the record establishes that the trial court considered the elements outlined in Mayfield.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Dylla
Court-appointed attorney fees are properly imposed against a defendant if the court finds on the record that the defendant's employment history, prospects for future employment, education level, ability to meet financial obligations, fee amount, and short jail sentence support a reasonable inference that defendant can or will be able to pay off the fee.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Gasche
Under OAR 213-012-0020(2)(a)(B), the "shift-to-I" rule applies only when consecutive sentences are imposed for crimes that arise from a single criminal episode.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Martinez
A trial court must make specific findings on the record that reasonable suspicion particular to the suspect existed when denying a criminal defendant's motion to suppress evidence that may have been gained after an unlawful seizure.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Perryman
Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw is valid under the exigent circumstances exception where the officer had probable cause to believe the defendant was intoxicated, a warrant could not have been obtained significantly faster than the process used under the circumstances, and, under the U.S. Constitution, the procedures used to extract the sample were reasonable.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Washington Fed. Savings and Loan v. Cheung
Under OEC 408, evidence of settlement communications is inadmissible if used to prove or show liability of a claim or its amount.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Cascade Kelly Holdings, LLC v. Dept. of Energy
Plaintiff’s claims for final certification for energy tax credits was moot because the deadline to issue final certification passed while the case was on appeal, and attorney fees were improperly awarded to Plaintiff because ORS 182.090 applies only to attorney fees in civil proceedings brought outside of the APA to which an agency is a party.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dept. of Human Services v. M.L.S./K.M.
Without discussing the facts underlying the appeal, the Court affirmed the termination of Mother and Father’s parental rights based on ORS 419B.504, by reason of conduct or condition seriously detrimental to the child.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Fort v. Persson
A dismissal without prejudice cannot give rise to claim preclusion.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Hill v. Coursey
A court-appointed attorney is not constitutionally inadequate when the attorney fails to object to testimony of an out-of-court statement detailing an opinion about the credibility of another witness.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Hughes v. Ephrem
When assessing a defense to an action for forcible entry and detainer predicated on a quitclaim transfer of the property to another party in a life estate, the trial court must make factual findings regarding the intent of the parties at the time of the transfer.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Labor Ready v. Mogensen
While ORS 656.262(7)(a) and ORS 656.267 require "notice of new medical conditions, they do not require notice of diagnoses.” Moreover, “a particular diagnosis is not required to support the compensability of a work-related condition.”
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Southard and Larkins
In custody proceedings, custody of a child may be granted to a primary caretaker who is a stepparent of a child; a primary caretaker seeking custody of a child may overcome the presumption that a biological parent acts in the best interest of a child if the caretaker may show that the child will face a detriment if removed from the primary caretaker's custody.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Monroe
Revoking probation based on one violation is not an abuse of discretion if the condition of probation is "zero tolerance/no structured sanctions."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Oliver
Under OEC 404(4) as construed by State v. Williams, 357 Or 1 (2015), evidence of other acts by a defendant may be admissible if the evidence is relevant under OEC 401 and its probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice as described in OEC 403.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Perez
When a defendant invites an error, such as by agreeing to it before the court has made its final decision, they lose the right to challenge that error on appeal through plain error review.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Pittman
Second-degree robbery is only a lesser included offense of first-degree robbery if the "accusatory instrument recited sufficient facts to satisfy each element of second-degree robbery."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Skaggs
Under ORS 138.222(5)(b), when an appellate court considers a case with multiple counts including at least one felony, if it reverses the judgment of any count and affirms the others, the case must be remanded to the trial court for resentencing.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Wehr
The trial court may not impose a sentence requiring payment of court-appointed attorney fees without evidence in the record that the defendant is or may be able to pay such fees. With invited error, a party “cannot be heard to complain,” if the party “was actively instrumental in bringing [it] about."
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Vaughn and Vaughn
A trial court retains personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state individual in motions captioned in relation to a dissolution judgment.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Asbill v. Angelozzi
Under ORS 138.640(1), if a judgment document denying post-conviction relief is sufficient even where it does not explicitly state the court’s findings underlying the reasons for denying relief, but makes reference to oral findings on the record which provide a sufficient basis for denying relief.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Dept. of Human Services v. J. M.
To support juvenile court jurisdiction following a motion to dismiss, the court must find that there is a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child and a reasonable likelihood that the threat will be realized, with burden on DHS. The risk of harm must be non-speculative and present at the time of the hearing.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Federal Express Corp. v. Estrada
Under ORS 656.265(4)(c), the employee must know that he or she has been injured and have good cause for not reporting within the 90 day period.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Gibson v. Bankofier
To survive summary judgment in proving financial abuse of a vulnerable person under ORS 124.110(1)(a), a plaintiff must show facts to prove that defendant wrongfully took or appropriated money or property from a vulnerable person.
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
Gutierrez v. Nooth
Under the Fifth Amendment, in order to implicate a defendant’s right to counsel while being questioned, a defendant must know he is speaking to a police officer. Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant’s right to counsel attaches only once a prosecution has commenced, and encompasses only those crimes formally charged or crimes that, while not formally charged, would be the same under the test in Blockburger v. United States, that whether two charges relate to one act is whether each statutory violation requires proof of a fact that the other does not.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Masood v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Oregon
under Oregon law, “courts determine whether a contract is illegal by determining whether it violates public policy as expressed in relevant constitutional and statutory provisions and in case law, and by considering whether it is unconscionable.” An adjustment is not the only way for a new contact to be formed, but instead, when the parties agree to make a new contract, then a breach of that new agreement by either party could give rise to new legal rights. Evidence of “other crimes, wrongs or acts,” is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Oatney v. Premo
Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, the state must show by a preponderance of the evidence that purportedly derivative evidence was obtained wholly from an independent source or that it would inevitably have been discovered. “Derivative evidence” is any evidence obtained by use—evidentiary or nonevidentiary—of the immunized statement.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Phillips v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards and Training
When an employment case is heard by an administrator and his findings pertain to allegations of misconduct under OAR 259-008-0070 then the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training must consider that issue resolved in a certification case. However, if the administrator’s decision on allegations of misconduct is not made under OAR 259-008-0070 then the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training is able to review the issues of the case for misconduct under that statute despite the arbitrator’s decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
State v. Delong
The scope of consent in a search is "determined by reference to what a typical, reasonable person would have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect in light of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the grant of consent in a particular case."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Gonzalez
Under OEC 803(3), hearsay statements intended to prove the state of mind of a defendant are admissible.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Hightower
Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, and State v. Blanchard, a defendant’s right to waive counsel may be limited where the defendant is unclear or equivocal or if granting the request to waive counsel will be disruptive to the orderly conduct of trial.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Johnson
Under ORS 163.160(1)(a), to sustain a conviction of fourth-degree assault, the state must prove that the victim suffered a "physical injury" which is defined as "physical impairment or substantial pain" under ORS 161.015(7). Testimonial evidence that the victim felt a "sting" after the incident, alone, does not imply a "physical injury".
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Kasper
A court may not impose attorney fees without announcing them in the presence of a criminal defendant; an imprisoned criminal defendant does not more disadvantaged than those similarly situated when he is denied the ability to credit time already served to a new sentence.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Kuester
Convictions for separate crimes stemming from the same event may not be merged unless they share all elements in common; an indefinite sentence of post-prison supervision is not permitted by State v. Stalder.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Lowell
Denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress text messages was improper, because the Fourth Amendment search incident to arrest exception does not apply to digital data stored on cell phones. Reversed and remanded.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Martinez
A clearly made objection to an exhibit as a whole may be preserved but if the defendant does not distinguish between admissible and objectionable statements and the Court finds that any portion of that exhibit is admissible, the objection will no longer stand.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. R.E.G.
Under ORS 427.290, a complete diagnostic report, including a diagnostic evaluation, is required before a civil commitment hearing can continue against an individual.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Sasser
Under former ORS 137.290 (2009), the court was permitted to impose a Mandatory State Amt of 60$ for each conviction. The legislature repealed the law in 2011, and any convictions after that time may not have the Mandatory State Amt imposed.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Zolotoff
Trial court may reconsider all counts of Defendant’s conviction for resentencing when on remand for reconsideration and resentencing for part of a felony package. Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. M. C. C.
Participating in dependency proceedings for more than two years without raising an objection to the sufficiency of service under the Hague Service Convention waives the objection.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Goodrich
Under the Oregon Trust Deeds Act, the Mortgage Electronic Recording System (MERS) is neither a lender nor a successor to a lender, and therefore cannot be a proper beneficiary. A non-judicial foreclosure by an assignee of MERS is invalid where there was no recording of the assignment in the county in which the property is located.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Santoscoy v. DMV
An agency did not fail to give a license applicant notice for the reason his license was suspended where the applicant failed to raise the notice issue until he brought it up his reply brief.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Southard v. Larkins
A court will not invalidate a marriage unless timely evidence proves that the marriage was invalid. A trial court has jurisdiction and authority to exercise its discretion in awarding custody of children in a marriage dissolution.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Adams
Former ORS 137.290(2)(b) (2009) does not apply to cases of DUII and other like cases that have been codified outside of chapter 163.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Amsbary
Where the State failed to prove an officer subjectively believed the defendant’s small black pouch was or contained a dangerous or deadly weapon, and that belief was objectively reasonable, the seizure of the evidence did not meet the officer safety exception to the warrant requirement of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and must be suppressed absent rebuttal of the presumption that the evidence was tainted by the violation.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Burkette
In assessing the reasonableness of a delay, the court will examine the attendant circumstances including the “reasons for the delay, the length of the total delay attributable to the state, and the length of any portion of the delay that was unjustified.” Delays attributable to a lack of judicial resources “will, at some point, become unreasonable.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. C. S.
The word imminent as used in ORS 163.190 means "near at hand, impending, or menacingly near."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Carlton
Trial court did not err in imposing a true life sentence (ORS 137.719) on a defendant based on the conclusion that the defendant’s previous felony under California law (CPC 288) was comparable to an Oregon statute. Affirmed.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. King
Under ORS 138.222(5)(a), where a trial court has amended a judgment adding a restitution award after the 90-day period allowed, the proper disposition of the case on appeal is not reversal but remand for resentencing if the trial court expressed a desire to have the defendant compensate the victim and the court could impose a compensatory fine that would be paid to the victim.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Perez-Morales
Trial court committed plain error in ordering a defendant to pay court appointed attorney fees without first considering his ability to pay.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Pichardo
State v. Unger and the companion cases have modified the analysis set forth in State v. Hall say that, “when a defendant seeks to suppress evidence discovered during a consent search that followed unlawful police conduct, ‘the state bears the burden of demonstrating that (1) the consent was voluntary; and (2) the consent was not the product of police exploitation of the illegal stop or search.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Roy
A trial court may err when it fails to give a jury instruction informing the jury that at least 10 jurors must concur as to the specific crime or crimes the defendant intended to commit where a party does not request the instruction; however, on appeal, the Court may decline to consider and correct the alleged error where the defendant did not object to the instruction and the jury verdict met the concurrence requirement anyway.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Simonsen
When considering an assignment of error under the plain error doctrine, if case law and the statute do not clearly provide an certain outcome, the trial court will not be held to have committed plain error.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Templeton
Under ORS 138.694, it is not necessary to file for and be granted a petition for assistance of counsel prior to filing a motion for which the assistance of counsel was requested.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Wasyluk
A trial court may exercise its discretion when responding to improper opinion statements by an attorney. When the improper statements are accidental and immediately addressed, it is not an abuse of discretion to issue a cautionary instruction instead of granting a mistrial.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure