Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. MacHuca

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 30, 2009No. 050647097; A133362Published

1DissentHaselton, J.

The majority’s conclusion that defendant’s consent to the blood draw was invalid, as involuntary, is ultimately, erroneously premised on a single sentence in the plurality opinion in State v. Newton, 291 Or 788, 801, 636 P2d 393 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Spencer, 305 Or 59, 750 P2d 147 (1988). That aspect of the Newton plurality is not binding, has never been cited, much less ratified, in the intervening 28 years, and is patently wrong. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

In holding that defendant’s consent to the blood draw was not voluntary, the majority opinion…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. NewtonOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  2. State v. SpencerOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  3. State v. DouglasOregon Supreme Court · 1971
  4. State v. WilliamsonOregon Supreme Court · 1989
  5. State v. HirschOregon Supreme Court · 1974

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

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

Powered by the Exa API