State v. Withnell
290 P.3d 908, 253 Or. App. 476, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 1388
Opinion
Defendant was convicted of hindering prosecution, ORS 162.325, and challenges the trial court’s denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal because the state did not prove the allegations of the indictment. The issue presented here is identical to that in State v. Hansen, 253 Or App 407, 290 P3d 847 (2012). Because defendant was tried jointly with the defendant in Hansen, the evidentiary record is also identical. For the reasons stated in Hansen, the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Withnell, 290 P.3d 908, 253 Or. App. 476, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 1388 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
290 P.3d 908 (State v. Withnell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Hansen
290 P.3d 847 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2012)