State v. Boyd

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Boyd

472 P.2d 844, 3 Or. App. 222, 1970 Ore. App. LEXIS 498

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 30, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 472 P.2d 844 (State v. Boyd) 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. Boyd, 472 P.2d 844, 3 Or. App. 222, 1970 Ore. App. LEXIS 498 (Or. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged with the crime of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and was found guilty by the circuit judge, sitting without a jury. He claims various errors of law occurred.

Defendant’s first assignment of error is as follows:

“The seizure of breath from the appellant’s person after he had requested to call his attorney is a violation of appellant’s rights secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and by Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.

As worded, the assignment of error does not complain of any ruling by the court below. Appellant faded to comply with Rule 19 of the rules of this court, so we do not consider this assignment.

The defendant’s other three assignments of error have to do with the alleged admission of certain evidence at the trial. We have been provided with a transcript of the proceedings at the hearing on the motion to suppress, but not with a transcript of the testimony at the time of the trial. Thus, we do not know whether the evidence herein objected to was admitted. We wid not speculate concerning the evidence. Our review of this case is limited to the record before us. State v. Sluder, 1 Or App 457, 463 P2d 594 (1970).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged with the crime of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and was found guilty by the circuit judge, sitting without a jury. He claims various errors of law occurred.

Defendant’s first assignment of error is as follows:

“The seizure of breath from the appellant’s person after he had requested to call his attorney is a violation of appellant’s rights secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and by Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.

As worded, the assignment of error does not complain of any ruling by the court below. Appellant faded to comply with Rule 19 of the rules of this court, so we do not consider this assignment.

The defendant’s other three assignments of error have to do with the alleged admission of certain evidence at the trial. We have been provided with a transcript of the proceedings at the hearing on the motion to suppress, but not with a transcript of the testimony at the time of the trial. Thus, we do not know whether the evidence herein objected to was admitted. We wid not speculate concerning the evidence. Our review of this case is limited to the record before us. State v. Sluder, 1 Or App 457, 463 P2d 594 (1970).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 P.2d 844, 3 Or. App. 222, 1970 Ore. App. LEXIS 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-boyd-orctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack