State v. Kendall

773 P.2d 1362, 96 Or. App. 735, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 682
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided May 24, 1989·No. C87-02-30946; CA A48220·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In a trial to the court, defendant was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. He contends that the court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. We hold that the court did not err in denying that motion. However, we reverse because of the lack of a written waiver of trial by jury.

Consent to be tried without a jury requires an express written waiver. Or Const, Art I, § 11; ORS 136.001. Although the state concedes that there is no written waiver in the record, it argues that, because defendant did not object or otherwise raise the issue in the trial court, he has not preserved the error for review. However, the error is apparent on the face of the record and we will consider it. ORAP 7.19(5). See State v. McDaniel, 96 Or App 337, 772 P2d 951 (1989).

Judgment reversed and remanded for a new trial.

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

State v. Kendall, 773 P.2d 1362, 96 Or. App. 735, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 682 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

773 P.2d 1362 (State v. Kendall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Barber
147 P.3d 915 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2006)
State v. Thomas
134 P.3d 1038 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2006)
State v. Crain
33 P.3d 1050 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2001)
State v. Lopez
946 P.2d 710 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1997)
State v. Smay
845 P.2d 1294 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1993)
State v. Huntley
827 P.2d 918 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1992)
State v. Lopez-Loaiza
812 P.2d 1 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1991)
State v. Halsell
781 P.2d 875 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1989)
State v. Kendall
773 P.2d 1362 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1989)