State v. Jenabzadeh

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Jenabzadeh

823 P.2d 1040, 111 Or. App. 392, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 381

Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided February 12, 1992·No. 9011-36365; CA A68311·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance as part of a drug cultivation, manufacture or delivery scheme or network. ORS 475.992. He had demurred on the ground that the scheme or network language is unconstitutionally vague. The trial court erroneously overruled his demurrer. State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434, 806 P2d 130, rev dismissed 312 Or 76, 815 P2d 701 (1991).

Because we dispose of the case on that issue, we need not reach defendant’s other assignment of error.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the indictment.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance as part of a drug cultivation, manufacture or delivery scheme or network. ORS 475.992. He had demurred on the ground that the scheme or network language is unconstitutionally vague. The trial court erroneously overruled his demurrer. State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434, 806 P2d 130, rev dismissed 312 Or 76, 815 P2d 701 (1991).

Because we dispose of the case on that issue, we need not reach defendant’s other assignment of error.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the indictment.

State v. Jenabzadeh, 823 P.2d 1040, 111 Or. App. 392, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 381 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

823 P.2d 1040 (State v. Jenabzadeh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related