State v. Roy

619 P.2d 648
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Roy. Read the opinion of the Court — 47 Or. App. 521
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided August 4, 1980·No. 10-79-05529 CA 16532·Published

Opinion

619 P.2d 648 (1980)
47 Or.App. 521

STATE of Oregon, Respondent,
v.
Shane Allan ROY, Appellant.

No. 10-79-05529; CA 16532.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted June 23, 1980.
Decided August 4, 1980.

Marilyn C. McManus, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Deputy Public Defender, Salem.

Rudolph S. Westerband, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were James M. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Walter L. Barrie, Sol. Gen., Salem.

Before JOSEPH, P.J., and WARDEN and WARREN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment on his conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. He raises a number of assignments of error, only one of which has merit. A portion of a security release questionnaire bearing defendant's purported signature was admitted into evidence over his objection. Under the rule in State v. Hartfield, 45 Or. App. 639, 609 P.2d 390 (1980), that ruling was erroneous. However, as was also true in Hartfield, the error was not such as to require reversal in the light of the other evidence.

Affirmed.

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

State v. Roy, 619 P.2d 648 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

619 P.2d 648 (State v. Roy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Hartfield
609 P.2d 390 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1980)
State v. Roy
619 P.2d 648 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1980)