State v. Shorey

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Shorey

124 P.3d 1290, 203 Or. App. 537, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1666

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 28, 2005

Docket20-02-01536A; A119463

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 P.3d 1290 (State v. Shorey) 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. Shorey, 124 P.3d 1290, 203 Or. App. 537, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1666 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992; possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992; and endangering the welfare of a minor, ORS 163.575. On appeal, he advances two assignments of error. First, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that police officers discovered in his house while executing a search warrant, because the warrant was not supported by probable cause. Second, he advances an unpreserved contention that the admission of a laboratory report violated his Confrontation Clause rights as articulated in Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36, 124 S Ct 1354, 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004), arguing that we should address the matter as plain error.

As to the first assignment, the state concedes that the decision of this court in State v. Henderson, 200 Or App 225, 113 P3d 944, rev allowed, 339 Or 544 (2005), is controlling. In that case, the defendant’s codefendant asserted the same argument as to the same warrant, and we agreed that the warrant was not supported by probable cause. We accept the state’s concession.

As to the second assignment, the state argues that, in State v. Thackaberry, 194 Or App 511, 95 P3d 1142 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 17 (2005), we rejected the same unpreserved argument and that that case is controlling. The state is correct.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992; possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992; and endangering the welfare of a minor, ORS 163.575. On appeal, he advances two assignments of error. First, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that police officers discovered in his house while executing a search warrant, because the warrant was not supported by probable cause. Second, he advances an unpreserved contention that the admission of a laboratory report violated his Confrontation Clause rights as articulated in Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36, 124 S Ct 1354, 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004), arguing that we should address the matter as plain error.

As to the first assignment, the state concedes that the decision of this court in State v. Henderson, 200 Or App 225, 113 P3d 944, rev allowed, 339 Or 544 (2005), is controlling. In that case, the defendant’s codefendant asserted the same argument as to the same warrant, and we agreed that the warrant was not supported by probable cause. We accept the state’s concession.

As to the second assignment, the state argues that, in State v. Thackaberry, 194 Or App 511, 95 P3d 1142 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 17 (2005), we rejected the same unpreserved argument and that that case is controlling. The state is correct.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 P.3d 1290, 203 Or. App. 537, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-shorey-orctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack