State v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Johnson

766 P.2d 422, 94 Or. App. 573, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 3

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 4, 1989

Docket87-CR-0033-JC, 86-CR-0345-JC; CA A46654

StatusPublished

This text of 766 P.2d 422 (State v. Johnson) 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. Johnson, 766 P.2d 422, 94 Or. App. 573, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 3 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his convictions for delivery and possession of controlled substances. ORS 475.992(1) and (4). He assigns as error the denials of his motions to controvert and the affidavit supporting the search warrant, to suppress physical evidence, and to obtain discovery of an internal investigation report concerning the conduct of the state trooper who conducted the “sting” operation.

We reject the first two assignments of error without discussion. We write only to explain that we have reviewed the sealed record and agree with the trial judge that the report contains neither exculpatory evidence nor information that would have been useful for cross-examination.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his convictions for delivery and possession of controlled substances. ORS 475.992(1) and (4). He assigns as error the denials of his motions to controvert and the affidavit supporting the search warrant, to suppress physical evidence, and to obtain discovery of an internal investigation report concerning the conduct of the state trooper who conducted the “sting” operation.

We reject the first two assignments of error without discussion. We write only to explain that we have reviewed the sealed record and agree with the trial judge that the report contains neither exculpatory evidence nor information that would have been useful for cross-examination.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

766 P.2d 422, 94 Or. App. 573, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-johnson-orctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack