Legal Opinion · Dissent
State v. Rainey
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided November 10, 1982No. C80-10-33816, CA A20105Published
1DissentVan Hoomissen, J.
I dissent from the majority opinion because I conclude that (1) defendant’s contention on appeal was not raised below; (2) giving the challenged instruction was not error; (3) the instructions taken as a whole were not erroneous; and (4) the error, if any, was harmless.
At trial defendant objected to the challenged instruction as follows:
“ * * * I would except to the instruction about delivery as a prima facie evidence and knowledge. This is not a sdbject for instruction which is limited to matters of law, and it is incorrect since the delivery does not prima facie show knowledge in that…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- County Court of Ulster Cty. v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- State v. LeBrunCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978
- State v. EastonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.