Legal Opinion

State v. Gorham

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 6, 1993No. 91-40636; CA A74086PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, J.

Defendant petitions for review of our opinion, 121 Or App 347, 854 P2d 971 (1993), in which we affirmed his conviction for unlawfully taking a deer. ORS 496.162; ORS 496.992. We treat the petition as one for reconsideration, ORAP 9.15, allow it, modify our opinion and adhere to it as modified.

Defendant and Midlam were charged with various game offenses arising out of a single incident. Midlam, who was tried first, subpoenaed defendant to testify. In our opinion, we noted that the same lawyer had represented both defendants, and that it was defendant’s own lawyer who subpoenaed defendant and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State of Oregon v. HennesseyOregon Supreme Court · 1952
  2. State v. GorhamCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. RoperCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  2. State v. McKeeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  3. State v. HockemaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API