Home/Court of Appeals of Oregon/State v. Conger

State v. Conger

851 P.2d 636, 120 Or. App. 220, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 719
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedMay 12, 1993
Docket90-10-1676-C; CA A72340
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 851 P.2d 636 (State v. Conger) 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. Conger, 851 P.2d 636, 120 Or. App. 220, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 719 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals her conviction for delivery of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. In her first assignment, she contends that the court erred by denying her motion to quash the indictment on the ground that the grand jury that returned it had only six members. The parties stipulated that one grand juror had been excused during the time that the indictment in this case was being considered.

The court erred in denying the motion. Goodwin v. State of Oregon, 116 Or App 279, 840 P2d 1372 (1992).

Reversed and remanded with instructions to quash the indictment.

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

Related

State v. Conger
878 P.2d 1089 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1994)
State Ex Rel. Schrunk v. Bonebrake
865 P.2d 1289 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1994)
State v. Conger
866 P.2d 469 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
851 P.2d 636, 120 Or. App. 220, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-conger-orctapp-1993.