State v. Walker

Oregon Supreme Court

State v. Walker

249 P. 635, 119 Or. 618, 1926 Ore. LEXIS 274

DecidedSeptember 21, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 249 P. 635 (State v. Walker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Walker, 249 P. 635, 119 Or. 618, 1926 Ore. LEXIS 274 (Or. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

BELT, J.

A reversal of the judgment of conviction is asked for the principal reason that the evidence tending to establish the guilt of defendant was obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure. This would, indeed, be an interesting question were it before us for decision. The “transcript on appeal” contains a duly certified copy of the judgment of conviction, notice of appeal, and undertaking on appeal. There is also what purports to be a bill of exceptions, which has been filed here but not in the lower court, consisting of the entire transcript of the evidence. The affidavits for search-warrant, the search-warrant, and the motion for suppression of the evidence are not in the record. Neither is the complaint made a part of the judgment-roll.

It is statutory (§ 1625, Or. L.) that upon an appeal to this court “the judgment or order appealed from can only be reviewed as to questions of law appearing upon the transcript.” We will not presume error. It is incumbent upon the appellant to bring before us that part of the record which he desires to have reviewed. If the county clerk was derelict in his duty in making up the judgment-roll, appellant should have applied to this court for an order directing such official to comply with the statute as defined *620 by Section 1582, Or. L. Tbe district attorney called attention in his brief to tbe state of tbe record and defendant did not profit thereby. It must be apparent there is no question before us for decision.

It follows that tbe judgment of conviction is affirmed. Affirmed. Rehearing Denied.

McBride, O. J., and Burnett and Coshow, JJ., concur.

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

BELT, J.

A reversal of the judgment of conviction is asked for the principal reason that the evidence tending to establish the guilt of defendant was obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure. This would, indeed, be an interesting question were it before us for decision. The “transcript on appeal” contains a duly certified copy of the judgment of conviction, notice of appeal, and undertaking on appeal. There is also what purports to be a bill of exceptions, which has been filed here but not in the lower court, consisting of the entire transcript of the evidence. The affidavits for search-warrant, the search-warrant, and the motion for suppression of the evidence are not in the record. Neither is the complaint made a part of the judgment-roll.

It is statutory (§ 1625, Or. L.) that upon an appeal to this court “the judgment or order appealed from can only be reviewed as to questions of law appearing upon the transcript.” We will not presume error. It is incumbent upon the appellant to bring before us that part of the record which he desires to have reviewed. If the county clerk was derelict in his duty in making up the judgment-roll, appellant should have applied to this court for an order directing such official to comply with the statute as defined *620 by Section 1582, Or. L. Tbe district attorney called attention in his brief to tbe state of tbe record and defendant did not profit thereby. It must be apparent there is no question before us for decision.

It follows that tbe judgment of conviction is affirmed. Affirmed. Rehearing Denied.

McBride, O. J., and Burnett and Coshow, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 P. 635, 119 Or. 618, 1926 Ore. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-walker-or-1926.