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

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. County Court of Ulster Cty. v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. State v. LeBrunCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978
  5. State v. EastonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978

5 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