State v. Wapniarski

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Wapniarski

950 P.2d 415, 151 Or. App. 700

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 6, 1998

DocketB345525; CA A95589

StatusPublished

This text of 950 P.2d 415 (State v. Wapniarski) 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. Wapniarski, 950 P.2d 415, 151 Or. App. 700 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction of driving while under the influence of intoxicants. ORS 813.110. He assigns error to the court’s failure to sustain his objection to expert testimony from a drug recognition expert as lacking in foundation. He also assigns error to the court’s failure to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal.

The state concedes that defendant’s objection to the testimony should have been sustained and that without it, the evidence was insufficient to convict. We accept the concession.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction of driving while under the influence of intoxicants. ORS 813.110. He assigns error to the court’s failure to sustain his objection to expert testimony from a drug recognition expert as lacking in foundation. He also assigns error to the court’s failure to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal.

The state concedes that defendant’s objection to the testimony should have been sustained and that without it, the evidence was insufficient to convict. We accept the concession.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

950 P.2d 415, 151 Or. App. 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wapniarski-orctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack