State v. Van Kim Nguyen

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Van Kim Nguyen

55 P.3d 525, 184 Or. App. 116, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 1542

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 2, 2002

Docket000332712; A113186

StatusPublished

This text of 55 P.3d 525 (State v. Van Kim Nguyen) 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. Van Kim Nguyen, 55 P.3d 525, 184 Or. App. 116, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 1542 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant and the state have jointly moved for a reversal of the judgment in this case convicting defendant of a single count of forgery in the first degree. We grant the motion.

At trial, the state moved to strike the reference in the felony indictment to a particular check that defendant was alleged to have forged, on the ground that defendant actually forged a different check. Despite defendant’s objection, the court granted the motion. On appeal, defendant argues that the foregoing amendment was substantive and therefore violated his right, under Article VII (Amended), section 5, of the Oregon Constitution to be charged with a felony only by a grand jury indictment. The state concedes that the trial court erred. In light of the record developed in the trial court, on which we do not elaborate here, we accept the state’s concession. See State v. Wimber, 315 Or 103, 113, 843 P2d 424 (1992).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant and the state have jointly moved for a reversal of the judgment in this case convicting defendant of a single count of forgery in the first degree. We grant the motion.

At trial, the state moved to strike the reference in the felony indictment to a particular check that defendant was alleged to have forged, on the ground that defendant actually forged a different check. Despite defendant’s objection, the court granted the motion. On appeal, defendant argues that the foregoing amendment was substantive and therefore violated his right, under Article VII (Amended), section 5, of the Oregon Constitution to be charged with a felony only by a grand jury indictment. The state concedes that the trial court erred. In light of the record developed in the trial court, on which we do not elaborate here, we accept the state’s concession. See State v. Wimber, 315 Or 103, 113, 843 P2d 424 (1992).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 P.3d 525, 184 Or. App. 116, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 1542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-van-kim-nguyen-orctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack