State v. Wyatt

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Wyatt

22 P.3d 1232, 173 Or. App. 646, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 598

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 25, 2001

DocketCR9501237; CA A95425

StatusPublished

This text of 22 P.3d 1232 (State v. Wyatt) 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. Wyatt, 22 P.3d 1232, 173 Or. App. 646, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 598 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

This case is before us on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court. State u. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 15 P3d 22 (2000). The Supreme Court reversed our determination that the trial court had committed reversible error in excluding the testimony of a defense expert witness as a sanction for violation of the reciprocal criminal discovery statute. Id. Defendant’s only remaining assignment of error on remand is that the trial court erroneously polled the jury. However, defendant did not raise and preserve any objection to the trial court’s action, and the court’s action did not constitute error apparent on the face of the record in that the alleged impropriety of the court’s polling is not a matter that “is obvious, not reasonably in dispute.” State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355, 800 P2d 259 (1990).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

This case is before us on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court. State u. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 15 P3d 22 (2000). The Supreme Court reversed our determination that the trial court had committed reversible error in excluding the testimony of a defense expert witness as a sanction for violation of the reciprocal criminal discovery statute. Id. Defendant’s only remaining assignment of error on remand is that the trial court erroneously polled the jury. However, defendant did not raise and preserve any objection to the trial court’s action, and the court’s action did not constitute error apparent on the face of the record in that the alleged impropriety of the court’s polling is not a matter that “is obvious, not reasonably in dispute.” State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355, 800 P2d 259 (1990).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 P.3d 1232, 173 Or. App. 646, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wyatt-orctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack