State v. Stone

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Stone

279 P.3d 313, 250 Or. App. 142, 2012 WL 1744504, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 613

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 16, 2012

Docket211015898; A147351

StatusPublished

This text of 279 P.3d 313 (State v. Stone) 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. Stone, 279 P.3d 313, 250 Or. App. 142, 2012 WL 1744504, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 613 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

After a trial on stipulated facts, defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010. On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred by (1) denying his motion to suppress evidence and (2) conducting a bench trial without obtaining a written waiver of his right to a trial by jury. We reject without discussion defendant’s argument that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress. However, defendant’s remaining assignment of error is well taken. The state concedes that the record does not contain a valid waiver of jury trial and that defendant’s conviction must be reversed. We agree, accept the concession, and, for the reasons expressed in State v. Barber, 343 Or 525, 173 P3d 827 (2007), exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

After a trial on stipulated facts, defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010. On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred by (1) denying his motion to suppress evidence and (2) conducting a bench trial without obtaining a written waiver of his right to a trial by jury. We reject without discussion defendant’s argument that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress. However, defendant’s remaining assignment of error is well taken. The state concedes that the record does not contain a valid waiver of jury trial and that defendant’s conviction must be reversed. We agree, accept the concession, and, for the reasons expressed in State v. Barber, 343 Or 525, 173 P3d 827 (2007), exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 P.3d 313, 250 Or. App. 142, 2012 WL 1744504, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stone-orctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack