Legal Opinion

State v. Rochefort

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided July 27, 1994No. 91-CR-0360-MS; CA A74277PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, J.

Defendant appeals his conviction for first degree theft. ORS 164.055. He argues that the trial court should have appointed an attorney for him, that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel, and that the court should have instructed the jury on the definition, of “with intent.”

Before his arraignment on the charge of first degree theft, defendant requested a court-appointed attorney and filed an affidavit of indigency. The affidavit states that defendant is a post office employee, earns a gross monthly income of $2,200, and pays child support for two children. The court…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. BrownOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State v. MeyrickOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  3. State v. PrattOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  4. State v. MeyerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  5. State v. FialaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  2. In Re StuartSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
  3. State v. MendoncaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
  4. State v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  5. State v. SchleicherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API