State v. McGhee

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. McGhee

572 P.2d 333, 31 Or. App. 1089, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2118

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 12, 1977

DocketNo. T-78031, CA 8878

StatusPublished

This text of 572 P.2d 333 (State v. McGhee) 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. McGhee, 572 P.2d 333, 31 Or. App. 1089, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2118 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWAB, C. J.

Defendant appeals from his conviction of driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 487.540, and assigns as error the denial of his motion for a new trial based on the alleged incompetence of his trial counsel. Defendant contends that his trial counsel was incompetent in neglecting to call him as a witness in his own behalf and in not providing full discovery to the district attorney as to another witness which resulted in the testimony of that witness being limited. What the testimony would have been, if not limited, is not disclosed to us.

There appears to be some conflict as to whether the denial of a motion for a new trial based on grounds other than an assertion of newly discovered evidence is an appealable order.¹ We need not attempt to resolve the matter for, in any case, incompetence of trial counsel is not an issue which may be properly raised in a motion for a new trial. As was stated in State v. Doris, 243 Or 70, 72, 409 P2d 679 (1966):

"This is not claimed to be a case of newly discovered evidence and, of course, could not be * * *. Second guessing trial tactics by a lawyer coming into the case after it is lost, is not ground for a new trial * * * and even though defendant’s former attorney had blundered this would not have been sufficient reason for allowing the motion * *

Affirmed.

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

SCHWAB, C. J.

Defendant appeals from his conviction of driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 487.540, and assigns as error the denial of his motion for a new trial based on the alleged incompetence of his trial counsel. Defendant contends that his trial counsel was incompetent in neglecting to call him as a witness in his own behalf and in not providing full discovery to the district attorney as to another witness which resulted in the testimony of that witness being limited. What the testimony would have been, if not limited, is not disclosed to us.

There appears to be some conflict as to whether the denial of a motion for a new trial based on grounds other than an assertion of newly discovered evidence is an appealable order.¹ We need not attempt to resolve the matter for, in any case, incompetence of trial counsel is not an issue which may be properly raised in a motion for a new trial. As was stated in State v. Doris, 243 Or 70, 72, 409 P2d 679 (1966):

"This is not claimed to be a case of newly discovered evidence and, of course, could not be * * *. Second guessing trial tactics by a lawyer coming into the case after it is lost, is not ground for a new trial * * * and even though defendant’s former attorney had blundered this would not have been sufficient reason for allowing the motion * *

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 P.2d 333, 31 Or. App. 1089, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcghee-orctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack