State v. McConnell

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. McConnell

144 P.3d 1043, 208 Or. App. 486, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1509

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 4, 2006

Docket0010-38009, 0102-31205; A115308, A115309

StatusPublished

This text of 144 P.3d 1043 (State v. McConnell) 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. McConnell, 144 P.3d 1043, 208 Or. App. 486, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1509 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

The Oregon Supreme Court has remanded this matter, which we affirmed without opinion, State v. McConnell, 196 Or App 241, 102 P3d 150 (2004), rent’d, 341 Or 197, 140 P3d 580 (2006), for reconsideration in light of State v. Cook, 340 Or 530, 135 P3d 260 (2006). Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135, possession of a stolen vehicle, ORS 819.300, and theft in the second degree, ORS 164.045.¹ Defendant’s sole assignment of error challenges the trial court’s admission of certain statements that his unavailable codefendant made in response to police interrogation. On reconsideration, we conclude that the trial court’s admission of those statements violated defendant’s confrontation right under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36, 124 S Ct 1354, 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004); Cook, 340 Or at 542-43. We further determine, after reviewing the entire record, that the trial court’s error in that regard was not “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 681, 106 S Ct 1431, 89 L Ed 2d 674 (1986); Cook, 340 Or at 544 (summarizing analysis for determining whether federal constitutional error is harmless).

Judgment in Case No. A115308, reversed and remanded; judgment in Case No. A115309, affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

The Oregon Supreme Court has remanded this matter, which we affirmed without opinion, State v. McConnell, 196 Or App 241, 102 P3d 150 (2004), rent’d, 341 Or 197, 140 P3d 580 (2006), for reconsideration in light of State v. Cook, 340 Or 530, 135 P3d 260 (2006). Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135, possession of a stolen vehicle, ORS 819.300, and theft in the second degree, ORS 164.045.¹ Defendant’s sole assignment of error challenges the trial court’s admission of certain statements that his unavailable codefendant made in response to police interrogation. On reconsideration, we conclude that the trial court’s admission of those statements violated defendant’s confrontation right under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36, 124 S Ct 1354, 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004); Cook, 340 Or at 542-43. We further determine, after reviewing the entire record, that the trial court’s error in that regard was not “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 681, 106 S Ct 1431, 89 L Ed 2d 674 (1986); Cook, 340 Or at 544 (summarizing analysis for determining whether federal constitutional error is harmless).

Judgment in Case No. A115308, reversed and remanded; judgment in Case No. A115309, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 P.3d 1043, 208 Or. App. 486, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcconnell-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack