State v. Zueger

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Zueger

196 P.3d 82, 223 Or. App. 604, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 1648

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 5, 2008

Docket060633603; A133871

StatusPublished

This text of 196 P.3d 82 (State v. Zueger) 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. Zueger, 196 P.3d 82, 223 Or. App. 604, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 1648 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*605 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894, and asserts two assignments of error. First, defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress evidence of methamphetamine seized from him. Second, defendant makes an unpreserved contention that the trial court erred in admitting a crime laboratory report, because he had a right to confront the technician who prepared the report. See State v. Birchfield, 342 Or 624, 157 P3d 216 (2007).

The state concedes that defendant’s first assignment of error is controlled by State v. Kirkeby, 220 Or App 177, 184, 185 P3d 510, rev allowed, 345 Or 301 (2008), and State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366, 371, 182 P3d 209, rev allowed, 345 Or 301 (2008). Although the state submits that those two cases were wrongly decided, it concedes that, under the holdings of those cases, the evidence of methamphetamine should have been suppressed and the judgment must be reversed. We agree and accept the state’s concession. Accordingly, we do not reach defendant’s second assignment of error.

Reversed and remanded.

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

*605 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894, and asserts two assignments of error. First, defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress evidence of methamphetamine seized from him. Second, defendant makes an unpreserved contention that the trial court erred in admitting a crime laboratory report, because he had a right to confront the technician who prepared the report. See State v. Birchfield, 342 Or 624, 157 P3d 216 (2007).

The state concedes that defendant’s first assignment of error is controlled by State v. Kirkeby, 220 Or App 177, 184, 185 P3d 510, rev allowed, 345 Or 301 (2008), and State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366, 371, 182 P3d 209, rev allowed, 345 Or 301 (2008). Although the state submits that those two cases were wrongly decided, it concedes that, under the holdings of those cases, the evidence of methamphetamine should have been suppressed and the judgment must be reversed. We agree and accept the state’s concession. Accordingly, we do not reach defendant’s second assignment of error.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 P.3d 82, 223 Or. App. 604, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 1648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-zueger-orctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack