D was convicted of second-degree murder. D filed a petition for post-conviction relief based on the fact that a court bailiff made a comment to the jury while they were sequestered; Oh, what a wicked fellow, he is guilty, and if there is anything wrong the Supreme Court will correct it. The trial court found that the unauthorized communication was prejudicial. The Supreme Court of Oregon reversed that finding.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.