State v. Willis

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Willis

150 P.3d 49, 210 Or. App. 364, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1994

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 27, 2006

Docket98CR0977; A121244

StatusPublished

This text of 150 P.3d 49 (State v. Willis) 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. Willis, 150 P.3d 49, 210 Or. App. 364, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1994 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant seeks review of the revocation of his probation imposed as a result of convictions for burglary in the first degree, ORS 164.225, and assault in the fourth degree, ORS 163.160. Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s admission of hearsay evidence at his probation revocation hearing, arguing, in part, that such admission violated his right to confrontation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendant asserts that he preserved this argument as required by ORAP 5.45 by including it in a motion in limine that he submitted to the trial court. However, because defendant did not pursue an objection or seek a ruling on due process grounds at any point during the revocation hearing, that issue is not preserved for purposes of appeal. State v. Turley, 202 Or App 40, 47-48, 120 P3d 1229 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 157 (2006).

A discussion of the alternative grounds for reversal raised by defendant would not benefit the public, bench, or bar.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant seeks review of the revocation of his probation imposed as a result of convictions for burglary in the first degree, ORS 164.225, and assault in the fourth degree, ORS 163.160. Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s admission of hearsay evidence at his probation revocation hearing, arguing, in part, that such admission violated his right to confrontation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendant asserts that he preserved this argument as required by ORAP 5.45 by including it in a motion in limine that he submitted to the trial court. However, because defendant did not pursue an objection or seek a ruling on due process grounds at any point during the revocation hearing, that issue is not preserved for purposes of appeal. State v. Turley, 202 Or App 40, 47-48, 120 P3d 1229 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 157 (2006).

A discussion of the alternative grounds for reversal raised by defendant would not benefit the public, bench, or bar.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 P.3d 49, 210 Or. App. 364, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-willis-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack