State v. Niswender

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Niswender

719 P.2d 517, 79 Or. App. 539, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 2861

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 29, 1986

Docket23-272; CA A35082

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 719 P.2d 517 (State v. Niswender) 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. Niswender, 719 P.2d 517, 79 Or. App. 539, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 2861 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for borrowing a game tag, ORS 497.400(2), contending that the trial court erred in denying a motion for continuance, which would have allowed the parties to secure the presence of a witness for trial. The state concedes that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s request for continuance in which the state joined. Because defendant met the requirements for obtaining a continuance for the purpose of securing a witness for trial, see State v. Otten, 234 Or 219, 223, 380 P2d 812 (1963); State v. Birchard, 23 Or App 17, 21-22, 540 P2d 1033 (1975), we agree that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny a continuance. State v. Wolfer, 241 Or 15, 403 P2d 715 (1965); State v. Schroeder, 62 Or App 331, 339, 661 P2d 111, rev den 295 Or 161 (1983).

Reversed and remanded for a 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 borrowing a game tag, ORS 497.400(2), contending that the trial court erred in denying a motion for continuance, which would have allowed the parties to secure the presence of a witness for trial. The state concedes that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s request for continuance in which the state joined. Because defendant met the requirements for obtaining a continuance for the purpose of securing a witness for trial, see State v. Otten, 234 Or 219, 223, 380 P2d 812 (1963); State v. Birchard, 23 Or App 17, 21-22, 540 P2d 1033 (1975), we agree that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny a continuance. State v. Wolfer, 241 Or 15, 403 P2d 715 (1965); State v. Schroeder, 62 Or App 331, 339, 661 P2d 111, rev den 295 Or 161 (1983).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

719 P.2d 517, 79 Or. App. 539, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 2861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-niswender-orctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack