State v. Kendall

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Kendall

773 P.2d 1362, 96 Or. App. 735, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 682

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 24, 1989

DocketC87-02-30946; CA A48220

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

773 P.2d 1362, 96 Or. App. 735, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kendall-orctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack