State v. Bradshaw

674 P.2d 1190, 66 Or. App. 585, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 2618
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJanuary 18, 1984
Docket20-414; CA A20459
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 674 P.2d 1190 (State v. Bradshaw) 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. Bradshaw, 674 P.2d 1190, 66 Or. App. 585, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 2618 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In State v. Bradshaw, 54 Or App 949, 636 P2d 1011 (1981), rev den 292 Or 568 (1982), we determined that, under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 US 477, 101 S Ct 1880, 68 L Ed 2d 378 (1981), the trial court erred in admitting statements made by the defendant after he had requested an attorney. The United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Oregon v. Bradshaw,_US_, 103 S Ct 2830, 77 L Ed 2d 405 (1983).

We denied defendant’s motion to file supplemental briefs and to make additional argument based on Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution. The proffered argument was not made in the trial court. Defendant’s brief raises no other issues. Pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision, defendant’s conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Fuller
554 A.2d 1364 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
674 P.2d 1190, 66 Or. App. 585, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 2618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bradshaw-orctapp-1984.