State v. Evans

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Evans

180 P.3d 67, 218 Or. App. 434, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 288

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 12, 2008

DocketCF040249; A130131

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 180 P.3d 67 (State v. Evans) 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. Evans, 180 P.3d 67, 218 Or. App. 434, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 288 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance, former ORS 475.992 (2003). He challenges, on federal Confrontation Clause grounds, the admission of a crime laboratory report identifying as methamphetamine the substance that was seized from him. The state concedes error under State v. Marroquin, 215 Or App 330, 168 P3d 1246 (2007), in which we reversed and remanded convictions due to the erroneous admission of laboratory reports in violation of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. See generally State v. Birchfield, 342 Or 624, 157 P3d 216 (2007). Apart from its procedural posture, we agree that the facts in this case do not differ in any significant way from those in Marroquin. Accordingly, we accept the state’s concession.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance, former ORS 475.992 (2003). He challenges, on federal Confrontation Clause grounds, the admission of a crime laboratory report identifying as methamphetamine the substance that was seized from him. The state concedes error under State v. Marroquin, 215 Or App 330, 168 P3d 1246 (2007), in which we reversed and remanded convictions due to the erroneous admission of laboratory reports in violation of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. See generally State v. Birchfield, 342 Or 624, 157 P3d 216 (2007). Apart from its procedural posture, we agree that the facts in this case do not differ in any significant way from those in Marroquin. Accordingly, we accept the state’s concession.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 P.3d 67, 218 Or. App. 434, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-evans-orctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack