State v. Gutherie

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Gutherie

462 P.2d 702, 1 Or. App. 386, 1969 Ore. App. LEXIS 158

Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided December 24, 1969·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted in a trial by jury of “assault with a dangerous weapon.” He appeals on [387] the grounds: (1) that the instruction given on self defense was not adequate, and (2) that neither he nor Ms counsel were permitted to see the pre-sentence report prepared by the Board of Parole and Probation.

These questions were not properly raised in the court below. We find nothing in the record wMch warrants departure from the rule that issues not properly raised and preserved in the trial court will not be considered on appeal. State v. Avent, 209 Or 181, 302 P2d 549 (1956).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted in a trial by jury of “assault with a dangerous weapon.” He appeals on [387] the grounds: (1) that the instruction given on self defense was not adequate, and (2) that neither he nor Ms counsel were permitted to see the pre-sentence report prepared by the Board of Parole and Probation.

These questions were not properly raised in the court below. We find nothing in the record wMch warrants departure from the rule that issues not properly raised and preserved in the trial court will not be considered on appeal. State v. Avent, 209 Or 181, 302 P2d 549 (1956).

Affirmed.

State v. Gutherie, 462 P.2d 702, 1 Or. App. 386, 1969 Ore. App. LEXIS 158 (Or. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

462 P.2d 702 (State v. Gutherie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related