Legal Opinion

State v. Naughten

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided July 9, 1970PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PEE CUEIAM.

Defendant was tried and convicted upon jury trial of the crime of assault and robbery being armed with a dangerous weapon. He did not take the witness stand.

His sole ground of appeal is that the trial court erred in instructing the jury:

“Every witness is presumed to speak the truth. This presumption may be overcome by the manner in which the witness testifies, by the nature of his or her testimony, by evidence affecting his or her character, interest, or motives, by contradictory evidence, or by a presumption.”

This instruction is not erroneous. State v. Kessler, 254 Or 124, 458 P2d…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. KesslerOregon Supreme Court · 1969
  2. State v. BlankCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1970

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hugh Naughten v. Hoyt C. Cupp, Superintendent, Oregon State PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1973
  2. Hugh Naughten v. Hoyt C. Cupp, Superintendent, Oregon State PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1973
  3. State v. DowellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API