Legal Opinion
State v. Herrera-Sorrosa
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided July 15, 1998No. 96CR-0342; CA A93755PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, J.
Defendant petitions for reconsideration, ORAP 6.25, asserting that the following portion of our original opinion is erroneous:
“Here, the evidence was disputed, or at least unclear, as to whether officer Benz told Colton that he had committed a traffic infraction. Given that evidence, which permitted the trial court to find that Benz did not ‘announce to [Colton] that he * * * had broken the law in the officer’s presence,’ [State v. Terhear/Goemmel, 142 Or App 450, 458, 923 P2d 641 (1996)], we assume that the court resolved that matter consistently with its ultimate conclusion that there was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ball v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1968
- State v. TerhearCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
3Cited by5 opinions
- LDS Development, LLC v. City of EugeneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
- State v. AyersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
- State v. HERRERASORROSACourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
- State v. HallCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
- State v. HallCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002