State v. Leuck

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Leuck

507 P.3d 296, 318 Or. App. 562

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 23, 2022

DocketA170900

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 507 P.3d 296 (State v. Leuck) 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. Leuck, 507 P.3d 296, 318 Or. App. 562 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted November 19, 2020, affirmed March 23, 2022

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. FRANK LEUCK, Defendant-Appellant. Harney County Circuit Court 18CR69525, 19CN00797; A170900 (Control), A170901 507 P3d 296

Alta Jean Brady, Senior Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 318 Or App 562 (2022) 563

PER CURIAM A jury found defendant guilty of attempted assault of a public safety officer, ORS 161.405 and ORS 163.208, and resisting arrest, ORS 162.315, arising out of a fracas when a Burns police officer arrested him for violating a restraining order. On appeal, defendant raises two assign- ments of error that challenge the trial court’s instructions to the jury. We reject his first assignment of error without discussion. Defendant’s second assignment of error is fore- closed by our recent decision in State v. Prophet, 318 Or App 330, 507 P3d 735 (2022) (concluding that the trial court did not err in refusing to give the defendant’s proposed instruc- tion because ORS 162.315 does not require that a defendant intentionally create a substantial risk of harm). Affirmed.

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

Submitted November 19, 2020, affirmed March 23, 2022

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. FRANK LEUCK, Defendant-Appellant. Harney County Circuit Court 18CR69525, 19CN00797; A170900 (Control), A170901 507 P3d 296

Alta Jean Brady, Senior Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 318 Or App 562 (2022) 563

PER CURIAM A jury found defendant guilty of attempted assault of a public safety officer, ORS 161.405 and ORS 163.208, and resisting arrest, ORS 162.315, arising out of a fracas when a Burns police officer arrested him for violating a restraining order. On appeal, defendant raises two assign- ments of error that challenge the trial court’s instructions to the jury. We reject his first assignment of error without discussion. Defendant’s second assignment of error is fore- closed by our recent decision in State v. Prophet, 318 Or App 330, 507 P3d 735 (2022) (concluding that the trial court did not err in refusing to give the defendant’s proposed instruc- tion because ORS 162.315 does not require that a defendant intentionally create a substantial risk of harm). Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 P.3d 296, 318 Or. App. 562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-leuck-orctapp-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack