State v. Schoen
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1ConcurrenceHaselton, J.
Defendant’s contention on appeal regarding the insufficiency of the state’s proof of third-degree criminal mischief, ORS 164.345(1), was not raised and preserved for our review. Accordingly, I concur that defendant’s conviction for that crime must be affirmed.
Before the trial court, defendant’s entire argument in support of the motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on the criminal mischief charge was as follows:
“We would ask for a motion for judgment of acquittal on the criminal mischief, for damaging a—or kicking a car door and a window. There’s been no showing [that] there’s any damage to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- State v. WyattOregon Supreme Court · 2000
- Peeples v. LampertOregon Supreme Court · 2008
- Stull v. HokeOregon Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. RangelOregon Supreme Court · 1999
- State v. ParagonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.