State v. Rice

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Rice

979 P.2d 312, 160 Or. App. 86, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 614

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 21, 1999

Docket9705-33976; CA A101137

StatusPublished

This text of 979 P.2d 312 (State v. Rice) 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. Rice, 979 P.2d 312, 160 Or. App. 86, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 614 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals her convictions in a trial to the court for possession of a controlled substance and tampering with physical evidence. The state concedes that we must reverse the convictions because the record does not contain a written waiver of defendant’s right to a jury trial. Or Const, Art I, § 11; ORS 136.001; State v. Taxon, 142 Or App 484, 920 P2d 567 (1996). We agree.

Defendant also argues that the trial court should have granted her motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of tampering with physical evidence on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to justify a conviction. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient and that the trial court correctly denied the motion.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals her convictions in a trial to the court for possession of a controlled substance and tampering with physical evidence. The state concedes that we must reverse the convictions because the record does not contain a written waiver of defendant’s right to a jury trial. Or Const, Art I, § 11; ORS 136.001; State v. Taxon, 142 Or App 484, 920 P2d 567 (1996). We agree.

Defendant also argues that the trial court should have granted her motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of tampering with physical evidence on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to justify a conviction. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient and that the trial court correctly denied the motion.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

979 P.2d 312, 160 Or. App. 86, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rice-orctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack