Legal Opinion

State v. Hamilton

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 13, 2003No. C002970CR; A113066PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWollheim, J.

Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of a weapon by an inmate of an institution, ORS 166.275. He argues that he had not been “committed” to the institution as required by ORS 166.275 and therefore the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. In determining whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. King, 307 Or 332, 339, 768…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. KingOregon Supreme Court · 1989
  3. State v. AndrewsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  4. State v. LarsenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  5. State v. HancockCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. GonzalezCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  2. State v. GetzingerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  3. State v. RankinsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  4. Hood River County v. MazzaraCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API