Join date: May 14, 2022

Ang Cute Ng Ina Mo Torrent berfodel




Download ang cute ng ina mo torrent, the panel then evaluates the accused's right to confront and cross-examine the witness. Id. In contrast to the procedural posture of the present case, the decision in Hudson relied on Pennsylvania caselaw addressing the "same subject" prong of § 921.141.4 The Washington Supreme Court, however, has declined to apply Pennsylvania caselaw in determining the proper scope of cross-examination under § 921.141(1)(c). See State v. Balisok, 123 Wash.2d 114, 866 P.2d 631, 642 (1994) (holding that the proper inquiry under § 921.141(1)(c) is whether the capital defendant was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses at issue).[9] We therefore conclude that Appellant's claim is procedurally barred. We have previously held that "an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not a basis for a collateral attack upon a judgment and sentence." State v. Nunn, 310 Or. 356, 377, 800 P.2d 816 (1990). See also Wilkins, 129 Or.App. at 381, 879 P.2d 1151 (declining to reach merits of ineffective assistance claim in habeas petition where it was raised as a post-conviction remedy). We see no reason why we should now adopt a different approach in addressing such a claim. [11] Appellant argues that, in light of the "death-qualifying" nature of his jury, any pretrial publicity could be expected to be prejudicial. [12] Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in permitting evidence of his juvenile record. He does not develop the point, however, and we therefore decline to address it. ORAP 5.45(1). [13] Although a defendant may introduce all relevant mitigating evidence in support of the second stage, a defendant has no general right to present evidence in mitigation at the penalty stage of trial. See Or. Const., Art. I, § 46; see also State v. Stevens, 311 Or. 119, 133, 806 P.2d 92 (1991). [14] As previously noted, the jury's ability to consider mitigating circumstances depends on the manner in which the trial court instructs the jury. Because we hold that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the concept of mitigating evidence,