Legal Opinion

State v. Chambless

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 22, 1992No. 10-90-04589; CA A67577PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, J.

Defendant appeals from convictions for unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance, unlawful possession of a controlled substance and criminal mischief in the second degree. ORS 475.992(1); ORS 475.992(4); ORS 164.354. He claims that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of psilocybin mushrooms found in his home, because (1) it improperly denied his motion to controvert the affidavit supporting the search warrant, (2) the warrant was not supported by probable cause and (3) the search exceeded the scope of the warrant. We affirm.

The facts relating to defendant’s first two arguments…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. AnspachOregon Supreme Court · 1984
  2. State v. SchroederCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  3. State v. WillisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1976
  4. State v. HandranCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  5. State v. BrustCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State v. FollettCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  2. State v. SpruillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  3. State v. CHAMU-HERNANDEZCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  4. State v. SundermanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
  5. State v. LambertCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API