State v. Carr

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Carr

863 P.2d 1316, 125 Or. App. 270, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 2047

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 8, 1993

Docket92-1046; CA A74940

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 863 P.2d 1316 (State v. Carr) 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. Carr, 863 P.2d 1316, 125 Or. App. 270, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 2047 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of perjury in a court trial, based on a notarized assertion he made on a construction lien notice against a third party. ORS 162.065. We affirm.

Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that there was no evidence that he made a sworn statement. A “sworn statement” is “any statement knowingly given under any form of oath or affirmation attesting to the truth of what is stated.” ORS 162.055(4). (Emphasis supplied.) Although defendant was not administered a formal oath, there is evidence that he signed the jurat portion of the notice where he affirmatively attested that “I have knowledge of the facts therein set forth” and that “all statements made in said instrument are true and correct as I verily believe.” The trial court did not err.

Defendant also argues that the trial court improperly delegated its authority to defendant’s probation officer to use with discretion the additional 90 custody units it imposed. Despite defendant’s failure to preserve the error below, the state concedes that the trial court did not have authority to impose that condition. See State v. Shefler, 118 Or App 536, 847 P2d 417 (1993). We have discretion to review unpreserved errors of law that are apparent on the face of the record. ORAP 5.45(2); Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 823 P2d 956 (1991); State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 800 P2d 259 (1990). We decline to exercise our discretion to review the error in this case.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of perjury in a court trial, based on a notarized assertion he made on a construction lien notice against a third party. ORS 162.065. We affirm.

Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that there was no evidence that he made a sworn statement. A “sworn statement” is “any statement knowingly given under any form of oath or affirmation attesting to the truth of what is stated.” ORS 162.055(4). (Emphasis supplied.) Although defendant was not administered a formal oath, there is evidence that he signed the jurat portion of the notice where he affirmatively attested that “I have knowledge of the facts therein set forth” and that “all statements made in said instrument are true and correct as I verily believe.” The trial court did not err.

Defendant also argues that the trial court improperly delegated its authority to defendant’s probation officer to use with discretion the additional 90 custody units it imposed. Despite defendant’s failure to preserve the error below, the state concedes that the trial court did not have authority to impose that condition. See State v. Shefler, 118 Or App 536, 847 P2d 417 (1993). We have discretion to review unpreserved errors of law that are apparent on the face of the record. ORAP 5.45(2); Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 823 P2d 956 (1991); State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 800 P2d 259 (1990). We decline to exercise our discretion to review the error in this case.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

863 P.2d 1316, 125 Or. App. 270, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 2047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carr-orctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack