State v. Duenaz

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Duenaz

400 P.3d 1043, 287 Or. App. 599, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 1029

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 30, 2017

Docket1307431C1; A156347

StatusPublished

This text of 400 P.3d 1043 (State v. Duenaz) 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. Duenaz, 400 P.3d 1043, 287 Or. App. 599, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 1029 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration, asserting that we should reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand this case, because the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence “without first balancing the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect.” Defendant’s argument is based on the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Williams, 357 Or 1, 346 P3d 455 (2015), which was decided after defendant filed his opening brief, but before the state filed its answering brief. The state relied on Williams in its brief, but defendant did not file a reply brief or a supplemental brief.

Because defendant’s petition for reconsideration is based on a contention that was not, but could have been, raised in defendant’s appellate briefing, we deny defendant’s petition. See Kinross Copper Corp. v. State of Oregon, 163 Or App 357, 360, 988 P2d 400 (1999), rev den, 330 Or 71 (2000) (generally, “[i]f a contention was not raised in the brief, * * * it is not appropriate to assert it on reconsideration”).

Petition for reconsideration denied.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration, asserting that we should reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand this case, because the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence “without first balancing the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect.” Defendant’s argument is based on the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Williams, 357 Or 1, 346 P3d 455 (2015), which was decided after defendant filed his opening brief, but before the state filed its answering brief. The state relied on Williams in its brief, but defendant did not file a reply brief or a supplemental brief.

Because defendant’s petition for reconsideration is based on a contention that was not, but could have been, raised in defendant’s appellate briefing, we deny defendant’s petition. See Kinross Copper Corp. v. State of Oregon, 163 Or App 357, 360, 988 P2d 400 (1999), rev den, 330 Or 71 (2000) (generally, “[i]f a contention was not raised in the brief, * * * it is not appropriate to assert it on reconsideration”).

Petition for reconsideration denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

400 P.3d 1043, 287 Or. App. 599, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 1029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-duenaz-orctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack