State v. Shipley

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Shipley

98 P.3d 407, 195 Or. App. 429, 2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 1242

Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided September 29, 2004·No. CPH010173; A119233·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for hindering prosecution. He advances two assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and (2) the trial court erred in denying him all the peremptory challenges that the law permits him to exercise at jury voir dire. We reject the first assignment without discussion. The state concedes the second assignment. We conclude that the concession is correct. ORS 136.230; State Highway Commission v. Walker et ux, 232 Or 478, 480-85, 376 P2d 96 (1962). The error requires reversal. Walker, 232 Or at 485 (denial of a party’s right to exercise peremptory challenge is “deemed prejudicial automatically’).

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 a judgment of conviction for hindering prosecution. He advances two assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and (2) the trial court erred in denying him all the peremptory challenges that the law permits him to exercise at jury voir dire. We reject the first assignment without discussion. The state concedes the second assignment. We conclude that the concession is correct. ORS 136.230; State Highway Commission v. Walker et ux, 232 Or 478, 480-85, 376 P2d 96 (1962). The error requires reversal. Walker, 232 Or at 485 (denial of a party’s right to exercise peremptory challenge is “deemed prejudicial automatically’).

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

State v. Shipley, 98 P.3d 407, 195 Or. App. 429, 2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 1242 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

98 P.3d 407 (State v. Shipley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related