State v. Hickman

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Hickman

489 P.2d 1154, 7 Or. App. 153

DecidedNovember 5, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 489 P.2d 1154 (State v. Hickman) 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. Hickman, 489 P.2d 1154, 7 Or. App. 153 (Or. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, having waived a jnry, was convicted by the conrt of the sale of dangerous drugs. ORS 475.100. He appeals, assigning as sole error the failure of the trial conrt sua sponte “to direct a verdict of acquittal.”

This conrt has repeatedly held that absent a showing of manifest injustice we will not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal which were not called to the attention of the trial court. There is no such showing here. State v. Paola, 3 Or App 258, 473 P2d 690 (1970).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, having waived a jnry, was convicted by the conrt of the sale of dangerous drugs. ORS 475.100. He appeals, assigning as sole error the failure of the trial conrt sua sponte “to direct a verdict of acquittal.”

This conrt has repeatedly held that absent a showing of manifest injustice we will not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal which were not called to the attention of the trial court. There is no such showing here. State v. Paola, 3 Or App 258, 473 P2d 690 (1970).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

489 P.2d 1154, 7 Or. App. 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hickman-orctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack