State v. Loke

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Loke

886 P.2d 507, 131 Or. App. 751, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 1810

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 14, 1994

Docket92-1394; CA A80578

StatusPublished

This text of 886 P.2d 507 (State v. Loke) 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. Loke, 886 P.2d 507, 131 Or. App. 751, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 1810 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for delivery of a controlled substance, marijuana, ORS 475.992, after trial by a 12-person jury. He contends that the trial court erred by restricting his voir dire of the jury panel to 32 minutes and denying his request for additional time. The court erred. The state does not argue otherwise. Defendant is entitled to a new trial.

We must, however, address defendant’s other assignment that the court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury. If the court erred by denying the motion, then defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal, not just a new trial. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find defendant guilty of delivery of marijuana under the definition of “delivery” in ORS 475.005(8).

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for delivery of a controlled substance, marijuana, ORS 475.992, after trial by a 12-person jury. He contends that the trial court erred by restricting his voir dire of the jury panel to 32 minutes and denying his request for additional time. The court erred. The state does not argue otherwise. Defendant is entitled to a new trial.

We must, however, address defendant’s other assignment that the court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury. If the court erred by denying the motion, then defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal, not just a new trial. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find defendant guilty of delivery of marijuana under the definition of “delivery” in ORS 475.005(8).

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

886 P.2d 507, 131 Or. App. 751, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 1810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-loke-orctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack