State v. McKarge

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. McKarge

717 P.2d 656, 78 Or. App. 667, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 2652

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 16, 1986

DocketDA 288341-8410; CA A37017

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 717 P.2d 656 (State v. McKarge) 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. McKarge, 717 P.2d 656, 78 Or. App. 667, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 2652 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

*668 PER CURIAM

Defendant was involved in an altercation with a TriMet bus driver and was convicted of harassment. ORS 166.065. Before trial, defendant subpoenaed the driver’s employment records. During the pretrial proceedings, counsel for Tri-Met requested the court to conduct an in camera inspection of the records to determine whether there were customer complaints indicating past assaultive behavior by the driver. The court examined the records and concluded that they contained no relevant material, so it did not make the records available to defendant for inspection.

In this direct appeal, defendant first contends that the trial court erred in conducting the inspection without allowing defendant to examine the file. The alleged error was not preserved.

As a second ground, he asserts that, if the alleged error was not preserved, he had ineffective assistance of counsel. This issue is one that can only be resolved in a post-conviction proceeding where an evidentiary hearing may be held. State v. Pettypool, 67 Or App 13, 14, 676 P2d 368 (1984); State v. Neighbors, 55 Or App 882, 885, 640 P2d 643 (1982); State v. Chase, 51 Or App 289, 291, 624 P2d 1100 (1981).

Affirmed.

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

*668 PER CURIAM

Defendant was involved in an altercation with a TriMet bus driver and was convicted of harassment. ORS 166.065. Before trial, defendant subpoenaed the driver’s employment records. During the pretrial proceedings, counsel for Tri-Met requested the court to conduct an in camera inspection of the records to determine whether there were customer complaints indicating past assaultive behavior by the driver. The court examined the records and concluded that they contained no relevant material, so it did not make the records available to defendant for inspection.

In this direct appeal, defendant first contends that the trial court erred in conducting the inspection without allowing defendant to examine the file. The alleged error was not preserved.

As a second ground, he asserts that, if the alleged error was not preserved, he had ineffective assistance of counsel. This issue is one that can only be resolved in a post-conviction proceeding where an evidentiary hearing may be held. State v. Pettypool, 67 Or App 13, 14, 676 P2d 368 (1984); State v. Neighbors, 55 Or App 882, 885, 640 P2d 643 (1982); State v. Chase, 51 Or App 289, 291, 624 P2d 1100 (1981).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

717 P.2d 656, 78 Or. App. 667, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 2652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mckarge-orctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack