Legal Opinion
State v. Johnson
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided May 12, 1993No. C-90-09-35322 and C-90-09-35323 CA A69301 (Control) & CA A69302)PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*153De MUNIZ, J.
Defendants are husband and wife. They were indicted for delivery and possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992(1), (4). The evidence that the state intended to offer against them was discovered during two separate searches: one of their motel room and one of their car.1 The court granted defendants’ motions to suppress the evidence found in the motel room on the ground that their consent to search was not voluntary, and the state appeals. ORS 138.060(3). We granted the state’s motion to consolidate. ORAP 2.30. We remand for further proceedings.
The chronology of events that…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Ball v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1968
- State v. StevensOregon Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. BatesOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- State v. KennedyOregon Supreme Court · 1981
- State v. WolfeOregon Supreme Court · 1983
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- State v. WerowinskiCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
- State v. RickardCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
- State v. LarsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
- State v. BarnettCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
- State v. ReinhardtCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.