State v. Langlois

Oregon Supreme Court

State v. Langlois

600 P.2d 872, 287 Or. 503, 1979 Ore. LEXIS 1186

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 2, 1979

Docket78-4-262, 78-4-263; CA 11427, CA 11848, SC 26355

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 600 P.2d 872 (State v. Langlois) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Langlois, 600 P.2d 872, 287 Or. 503, 1979 Ore. LEXIS 1186 (Or. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

*505 MEMORANDUM OPINION.

Defense counsel moved for discovery asking for the handwritten notes of the police officers. The state moved for a protective order exempting the notes from disclosure. The trial court denied the motion for a protective order. The state then informed the trial cotub that it was not going to turn over the notes to the defense and the trial court could either suppress the testimony of the officer making the notes or dismiss the case. The state suggested it would be "proper” and "appropriate” to suppress so that it could appeal. The trial court entered an order suppressing the officer’s testimony. The state appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed. State v. Langlois, 40 Or App 629, 595 P2d 1388 (1979). The defendant petitioned for review and we reverse, instructing the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The problem is caused by ORS 138.060 which limits the orders from which the state can appeal. The state can appeal from an order suppressing evidence, but it has no right of appeal from an order allowing discovery against it. Under facts which we regard as legality identical to those in the present case we held in State v. Koennecke, 274 Or 169, 173-174, 545 P2d 127 (1976), that the state was not entitled to appeal. We adhere to the principle of that decision.

Reversed with instructions.

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

*505 MEMORANDUM OPINION.

Defense counsel moved for discovery asking for the handwritten notes of the police officers. The state moved for a protective order exempting the notes from disclosure. The trial court denied the motion for a protective order. The state then informed the trial cotub that it was not going to turn over the notes to the defense and the trial court could either suppress the testimony of the officer making the notes or dismiss the case. The state suggested it would be "proper” and "appropriate” to suppress so that it could appeal. The trial court entered an order suppressing the officer’s testimony. The state appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed. State v. Langlois, 40 Or App 629, 595 P2d 1388 (1979). The defendant petitioned for review and we reverse, instructing the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The problem is caused by ORS 138.060 which limits the orders from which the state can appeal. The state can appeal from an order suppressing evidence, but it has no right of appeal from an order allowing discovery against it. Under facts which we regard as legality identical to those in the present case we held in State v. Koennecke, 274 Or 169, 173-174, 545 P2d 127 (1976), that the state was not entitled to appeal. We adhere to the principle of that decision.

Reversed with instructions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

600 P.2d 872, 287 Or. 503, 1979 Ore. LEXIS 1186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-langlois-or-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack