State v. Cardwell

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Cardwell

538 P.2d 372, 22 Or. App. 240, 1975 Ore. App. LEXIS 1187

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 4, 1975

DocketNo. C 74-09-2690 Cr

StatusPublished

This text of 538 P.2d 372 (State v. Cardwell) 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. Cardwell, 538 P.2d 372, 22 Or. App. 240, 1975 Ore. App. LEXIS 1187 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PEE CUEIAM.

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury to the effect that intoxication could he considered in determining whether defendant had a mental disease or defect at the time he is alleged to have shot the victim. We do not reach this question because defendant did not request the trial judge to give an instruction on this point nor did he except to any of the instructions that were given on the subject.

Affirmed.

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

PEE CUEIAM.

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury to the effect that intoxication could he considered in determining whether defendant had a mental disease or defect at the time he is alleged to have shot the victim. We do not reach this question because defendant did not request the trial judge to give an instruction on this point nor did he except to any of the instructions that were given on the subject.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

538 P.2d 372, 22 Or. App. 240, 1975 Ore. App. LEXIS 1187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cardwell-orctapp-1975.