Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

State v. Cazares-Mendez

256 P.3d 104 (2011)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 30,900+ case briefs...

State v. Cazares-Mendez

Oregon Supreme Court

256 P.3d 104 (2011)

Facts

Jessie Valero was stabbed 29 times and found dead in her apartment; there were indications that a robbery might have also taken place. Jose Cazares-Mendez and Jorge Reyes-Sanchez (defendants) were charged with the murder and robbery. However, another person, Tiffany Scherer, spontaneously confessed to four different people that she had stabbed a woman to death during an argument. In one confession, Scherer even specifically identified the woman as Valero. Scherer included details in the confessions that matched the crime, such as the high number of stab wounds and the robbery evidence. Scherer also told one person that the victim had suffered a seizure, which was a significant statement because Valero had epilepsy. Three of Scherer’s confessions occurred shortly after Valero’s death, and the fourth happened a few months later. Cazares-Mendez was tried first. At his trial, Cazares-Mendez attempted to introduce evidence of Scherer’s confessions. However, Scherer now claimed that she did not know Valero and had never confessed. Cazares-Mendez offered to have the four witnesses testify about Scherer’s confessions using the hearsay exception for an unavailable witness’s statements against interest. But the exception did not apply because Scherer was available as a witness, and the trial court excluded the witness testimony. At his later trial, Reyes-Sanchez also tried to introduce the same confession testimony under the residual exception for hearsay. However, because the testimony was a near miss under the statement-against-interest exception, the state’s near-miss doctrine prevented use of the residual exception, and the trial court excluded the testimony again. Both Cazares-Mendez and Reyes-Sanchez were convicted and appealed, arguing that excluding testimony about Scherer’s confessions violated their due-process rights.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Balmer, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 552,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 552,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 552,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 30,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership