State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. London

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. London

869 P.2d 903, 126 Or. App. 629, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 263

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 2, 1994

Docket9010-82836; CA A74757

StatusPublished

This text of 869 P.2d 903 (State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. London) 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

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. London, 869 P.2d 903, 126 Or. App. 629, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 263 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Child appeals from an order of the juvenile court that found him to be within the court’s jurisdiction because of an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of possession of a controlled substance. ORS 419.476; ORS 475.992. We affirm the finding of jurisdiction but remand for entry of a modified order.

Child makes three assignments. First, he argues that the state did not establish the element of possession required in ORS 475.992. On de novo review, ORS 419.561, we conclude that the evidence establishes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that child possessed cocaine as alleged in the petition. Child also argues that a crime laboratory report introduced by the state under ORS 475.235(3) was inadmissible, because that statute does not apply in a juvenile proceeding. He did not preserve this argument, and we decline to address it for the first time on appeal. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 823 P2d 956 (1991).

In his final assignment, child contends that the juvenile court’s order incorrectly refers to robbery charges not adjudicated in the March 9,1992, hearing and requests that we remand to the juvenile court to correct the order. The state agrees that the order contains clerical errors. We remand to the juvenile court to correct the order.

Remanded for entry of modified order; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Child appeals from an order of the juvenile court that found him to be within the court’s jurisdiction because of an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of possession of a controlled substance. ORS 419.476; ORS 475.992. We affirm the finding of jurisdiction but remand for entry of a modified order.

Child makes three assignments. First, he argues that the state did not establish the element of possession required in ORS 475.992. On de novo review, ORS 419.561, we conclude that the evidence establishes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that child possessed cocaine as alleged in the petition. Child also argues that a crime laboratory report introduced by the state under ORS 475.235(3) was inadmissible, because that statute does not apply in a juvenile proceeding. He did not preserve this argument, and we decline to address it for the first time on appeal. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 823 P2d 956 (1991).

In his final assignment, child contends that the juvenile court’s order incorrectly refers to robbery charges not adjudicated in the March 9,1992, hearing and requests that we remand to the juvenile court to correct the order. The state agrees that the order contains clerical errors. We remand to the juvenile court to correct the order.

Remanded for entry of modified order; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

869 P.2d 903, 126 Or. App. 629, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-juvenile-department-v-london-orctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack