State v. Foster

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Foster

660 P.2d 200, 62 Or. App. 298, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 2761

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 16, 1983

Docket81-333C; CA A22845

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 660 P.2d 200 (State v. Foster) 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. Foster, 660 P.2d 200, 62 Or. App. 298, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 2761 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of felony murder, first degree kidnapping and criminal conspiracy. The latter charges were merged into the murder conviction for purposes of sentencing. Defendant appeals from the resulting judgment.

One of the state’s principal witnesses was defendant’s accomplice, Walker. Before the trial commenced and again during Walker’s testimony, defendant’s attorney sought rulings from the court that no mention could be made of the fact that Walker was required to take a polygraph examination as a condition of his plea agreement with the state and that defendant could impeach Walker on the basis of the plea agreement without opening the door to the state’s introduction of the polygraph condition as rehabilitation evidence. The court indicated that it was inclined to admit evidence of the polygraph.

On cross-examination of the accomplice, defendant declined to ask him about the plea agreement. Had he done so, and had the polygraph condition of the agreement then been received, defendant would have had the opportunity to argue on appeal that the admission of that evidence was error. State v. Middleton, 61 Or App 680, 658 P2d 555 (1983). Although the court indicated how it would rule, it was never actually called upon to make a ruling. There is no error requiring reversal.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of felony murder, first degree kidnapping and criminal conspiracy. The latter charges were merged into the murder conviction for purposes of sentencing. Defendant appeals from the resulting judgment.

One of the state’s principal witnesses was defendant’s accomplice, Walker. Before the trial commenced and again during Walker’s testimony, defendant’s attorney sought rulings from the court that no mention could be made of the fact that Walker was required to take a polygraph examination as a condition of his plea agreement with the state and that defendant could impeach Walker on the basis of the plea agreement without opening the door to the state’s introduction of the polygraph condition as rehabilitation evidence. The court indicated that it was inclined to admit evidence of the polygraph.

On cross-examination of the accomplice, defendant declined to ask him about the plea agreement. Had he done so, and had the polygraph condition of the agreement then been received, defendant would have had the opportunity to argue on appeal that the admission of that evidence was error. State v. Middleton, 61 Or App 680, 658 P2d 555 (1983). Although the court indicated how it would rule, it was never actually called upon to make a ruling. There is no error requiring reversal.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

660 P.2d 200, 62 Or. App. 298, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 2761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-foster-orctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack