Hall v. Oregon State Penitentiary

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Hall v. Oregon State Penitentiary

756 P.2d 696, 92 Or. App. 10

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 29, 1988

Docket08-87-090; CA A46011

StatusPublished

This text of 756 P.2d 696 (Hall v. Oregon State Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hall v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 756 P.2d 696, 92 Or. App. 10 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks review of a final order of the Superintendent which required him to serve six months in segregation and pay a $200 fine for a violation of OAR 291-105-015(14), by attempting to violate the rule against possession of narcotics.

Petitioner contends that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a finding that he was involved in bringing drugs into the penitentiary. The charge was based on an officer’s report that petitioner had asked the officer if he would bring drugs into prison for him in exchange for money. Petitioner failed a polygraph test. The report of the officer and petitioner’s testimony that he showed his bank book to the officer constitute substantial evidence in support of the findings of the hearings officer. The polygraph test results were admissible as well.

Petitioner also contends that the Superintendent had no authority to fine him. Respondent concedes that, under Watson v. OSP, 90 Or App 85, 750 P2d 1188 (1988), imposition of the fine was erroneous.

Fine vacated; otherwise affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks review of a final order of the Superintendent which required him to serve six months in segregation and pay a $200 fine for a violation of OAR 291-105-015(14), by attempting to violate the rule against possession of narcotics.

Petitioner contends that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a finding that he was involved in bringing drugs into the penitentiary. The charge was based on an officer’s report that petitioner had asked the officer if he would bring drugs into prison for him in exchange for money. Petitioner failed a polygraph test. The report of the officer and petitioner’s testimony that he showed his bank book to the officer constitute substantial evidence in support of the findings of the hearings officer. The polygraph test results were admissible as well.

Petitioner also contends that the Superintendent had no authority to fine him. Respondent concedes that, under Watson v. OSP, 90 Or App 85, 750 P2d 1188 (1988), imposition of the fine was erroneous.

Fine vacated; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

756 P.2d 696, 92 Or. App. 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-oregon-state-penitentiary-orctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack