Legal Opinion

State v. Bockorny

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 23, 1994No. C90-08-34879, C89-10-35768; CA A69266, A69267PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, J.

Defendant has petitioned for review of our decision. 125 Or App 479, 866 P2d 1230 (1993). We treat the petition as one for reconsideration, ORAP 1.10; former ORAP 9.15, and allow it to address defendant’s assertion that our opinion does not adequately develop certain facts.

Defendant argued that the trial court erred in allowing the state to call one of his expert witnesses, Dr. Grimsbo, to testify on behalf of the state. Defendant contends that our opinion does not show that Grimsbo

“was compelled by the trial court to speak to the prosecution and would not have cooperated with the prosecution…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. BockornyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. LunowCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
  2. State v. RiddleCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
  3. State v. FitzpatrickCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  4. State v. LunowCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
  5. State v. RiddleCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998

1 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