State v. Pepper

RIGGS, J.,

specially concurring.

The state, the defendant and the trial court judge will no doubt be as bewildered as I was after they read the following passage from the majority opinion:

“The state points to no authority for the arrest. No issue of concurrent jurisdiction is presented on these facts. See State v. Nearing, 99 Or App 724,784 P2d 121 (1989), rev den 309 Or 698 (1990).” 105 Or App at 108.

The record shows otherwise. By ignoring the record and misstating the issue, the majority avoids reexamination of State v. Nearing, supra. In Nearing, we held that Oregon has concurrent…