Legal Opinion

State v. Castrejon

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 12, 1992No. 9004-32451; CA A66770PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.

Defendant appeals from his conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. ORS 164.135. The question is whether the jury instruction defining “reasonable doubt” was adequate.

The trial court instructed the jury:

“Now, the law presumes the defendant is innocent. The burden is upon the State to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt means just that. After considering all of the evidence, if you have a reasonable doubt as to defendant’s guilt, then you must find defendant not guilty. On the other hand, the State is not required to prove guilt beyond all…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. HydeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
  2. State v. ChinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1976

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. CastrejonOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. CastrejonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API