State v. Beaudoin

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Beaudoin

548 P.2d 1337, 25 Or. App. 333, 1976 Ore. App. LEXIS 1974

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 20, 1976

DocketNo. C 74-05-1347 Cr, CA 5228

StatusPublished

This text of 548 P.2d 1337 (State v. Beaudoin) 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 v. Beaudoin, 548 P.2d 1337, 25 Or. App. 333, 1976 Ore. App. LEXIS 1974 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted on jury trial of attempted murder, ORS 163.115 and 161.405. By the verdict the jury found that the defendant, a young man, was the perpetrator of a particularly brutal beating of an old man. The only assigned error worthy of notice concerns the introduction in evidence of allegedly prejudicial photographs of the elderly man. Three of the photographs can be termed as gruesome. However, each of them is taken from a different angle of the victim’s head and they do not duplicate the showing of his injuries. They are quite relevant from the standpoint of showing the intent of the perpetrator of the attack. Therefore, there was no error involved in their introduction into evidence.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted on jury trial of attempted murder, ORS 163.115 and 161.405. By the verdict the jury found that the defendant, a young man, was the perpetrator of a particularly brutal beating of an old man. The only assigned error worthy of notice concerns the introduction in evidence of allegedly prejudicial photographs of the elderly man. Three of the photographs can be termed as gruesome. However, each of them is taken from a different angle of the victim’s head and they do not duplicate the showing of his injuries. They are quite relevant from the standpoint of showing the intent of the perpetrator of the attack. Therefore, there was no error involved in their introduction into evidence.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

548 P.2d 1337, 25 Or. App. 333, 1976 Ore. App. LEXIS 1974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-beaudoin-orctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack