State v. West

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. West

495 P.3d 217, 314 Or. App. 478

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 9, 2021

DocketA171715

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 495 P.3d 217 (State v. West) 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. West, 495 P.3d 217, 314 Or. App. 478 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted July 23, affirmed September 9, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HENRY SAMUEL WEST, Defendant-Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 18CR13803; A171715 495 P3d 217

J. Channing Bennett, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Brett J. Allin, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before James, Presiding Judge, and Kamins, Judge, and Kistler, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 314 Or App 478 (2021) 479

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for reck- lessly endangering another person, arguing that the trial court plainly erred by failing to sua sponte instruct the jury that it must agree as to which of several driving maneuvers formed the basis of its verdict, and which of several other drivers on the road were endangered by that conduct. We affirm. To prove the crime of recklessly endangering another person, the state may properly rely on defendant’s course of driving which put all of the other drivers at a potential risk of harm—which may involve more than one individual, specific maneuver. Accordingly, the trial court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in failing to instruct the jury as to concurrence. Affirmed.

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

Submitted July 23, affirmed September 9, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HENRY SAMUEL WEST, Defendant-Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 18CR13803; A171715 495 P3d 217

J. Channing Bennett, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Brett J. Allin, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before James, Presiding Judge, and Kamins, Judge, and Kistler, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 314 Or App 478 (2021) 479

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for reck- lessly endangering another person, arguing that the trial court plainly erred by failing to sua sponte instruct the jury that it must agree as to which of several driving maneuvers formed the basis of its verdict, and which of several other drivers on the road were endangered by that conduct. We affirm. To prove the crime of recklessly endangering another person, the state may properly rely on defendant’s course of driving which put all of the other drivers at a potential risk of harm—which may involve more than one individual, specific maneuver. Accordingly, the trial court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in failing to instruct the jury as to concurrence. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

495 P.3d 217, 314 Or. App. 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-west-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack