State v. Looper

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Looper

713 P.2d 1099, 77 Or. App. 660, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 2473

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 12, 1986

DocketM383975; CA A34455

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 713 P.2d 1099 (State v. Looper) 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. Looper, 713 P.2d 1099, 77 Or. App. 660, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 2473 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

*662 WARREN, J.

The state petitions for reconsideration of our previous decision. 76 Or App 231, 708 P2d 1190 (1985). 1 We held that the trial court’s failure to give the jury a written or electronically recorded copy of the jury instructions for its use during deliberation did not satisfy ORCP 59B 2 and was reversible error. We also held that the trial court’s informing the jury that it could request to have the recorded instructions played back in the courtroom during its deliberation did not satisfy the rule and that the mandatory language of ORCP 59B required strict compliance.

In its petition, the state, for the first time, points out that ORCP 59C(5) requires only that the jury “be kept together in some convenient place” when it retires for deliberation. We agree with the state’s contention that the courtroom may be a “convenient place.” Reassembling the jury in the courtroom to rehear the instructions can be part of the deliberation process. By making the recorded instructions available to the jury in the courtroom during its deliberation, the trial court did comply with ORCP 59B. We grant the petition for reconsideration, withdraw our former opinion and affirm defendant’s conviction.

Petition for reconsideration granted; former opinion withdrawn; judgment of conviction affirmed.

1

The facts of this case are stated in our previous opinion and are not repeated here.

2

ORCP 59B provides, in pertinent part:

“* * * If either party requires it * * * the charge shall either be reduced to writing * * * or recorded electronically during the charging of the jury. The jury shall take such written instructions or recording with it while deliberating upon the verdict * *

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

*662 WARREN, J.

The state petitions for reconsideration of our previous decision. 76 Or App 231, 708 P2d 1190 (1985). 1 We held that the trial court’s failure to give the jury a written or electronically recorded copy of the jury instructions for its use during deliberation did not satisfy ORCP 59B 2 and was reversible error. We also held that the trial court’s informing the jury that it could request to have the recorded instructions played back in the courtroom during its deliberation did not satisfy the rule and that the mandatory language of ORCP 59B required strict compliance.

In its petition, the state, for the first time, points out that ORCP 59C(5) requires only that the jury “be kept together in some convenient place” when it retires for deliberation. We agree with the state’s contention that the courtroom may be a “convenient place.” Reassembling the jury in the courtroom to rehear the instructions can be part of the deliberation process. By making the recorded instructions available to the jury in the courtroom during its deliberation, the trial court did comply with ORCP 59B. We grant the petition for reconsideration, withdraw our former opinion and affirm defendant’s conviction.

Petition for reconsideration granted; former opinion withdrawn; judgment of conviction affirmed.

1

The facts of this case are stated in our previous opinion and are not repeated here.

2

ORCP 59B provides, in pertinent part:

“* * * If either party requires it * * * the charge shall either be reduced to writing * * * or recorded electronically during the charging of the jury. The jury shall take such written instructions or recording with it while deliberating upon the verdict * *

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

713 P.2d 1099, 77 Or. App. 660, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 2473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-looper-orctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack