State v. Leslie

850 P.2d 1134, 119 Or. App. 249, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 602
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedApril 21, 1993
Docket89-1025; CA A67654
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 850 P.2d 1134 (State v. Leslie) 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. Leslie, 850 P.2d 1134, 119 Or. App. 249, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 602 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

RICHARDSON, C. J.

Defendant appeals his convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm, ORS 166.250, attempt to use a deadly weapon, ORS 166.220, menacing, ORS 163.190, and resisting arrest, ORS 162.315. He argues that the court erred in denying his motion for disclosure of police personnel files and in denying various post-trial motions. We affirm.

Police officers attempted to arrest defendant after a disturbance at a tavern. An altercation ensued between two officers and defendant. During the altercation, defendant pointed a gun at one of the officers and threatened to kill him.

Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s refusal to disclose the personnel files of the officers. He sought disclosure to see if the files contained evidence to support his theory that the officers acted with excessive force and caused the altercation. The court examined the files in camera and ruled that they did not contain anything relevant to defendant’s case. Defendant contends that the court’s in camera inspection was insufficient, because there may have been earlier allegations or instances of excessive force. He also argues that there may be material discoverable under ORS 135.815.

The trial court’s in camera inspection of the files was the appropriate procedure to determine whether the files contained exculpatory material. We have examined them and have found no earlier allegations or incidents of excessive force, or any material subject to discovery under ORS 135.815. Defendant’s remaining assignments of error do not require discussion.

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Hernandez-Sanchez
486 P.3d 806 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2021)
State v. Weaver
911 P.2d 969 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1996)
People v. Stanaway
521 N.W.2d 557 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
850 P.2d 1134, 119 Or. App. 249, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-leslie-orctapp-1993.