Legal Opinion

State v. Conger

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 22, 1993No. 90-10-1676-C; CA A72340; 91011702C; CA A71205PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWarren, J.

In a consolidated petition for review, the state seeks review of our decisions in State v. Conger, 120 Or App 220, 851 P2d 636 (1993) and State v. Daugherty, 116 Or App 665, 841 P2d 704 (1992). We treat the petition as one for reconsideration, ORAP 9.15, allow it and modify our opinions.

Both defendants were tried and convicted of delivery of a controlled substance. Before trial, each defendant moved to quash the indictment on the basis that the grand jury that had returned the indictment was not comprised of seven members, as required by Oregon Constitution, Article VII (amended), section…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Goodwin v. State of OregonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  2. Goodwin v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
  3. State v. CongerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
  4. State v. DaughertyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. CongerOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State Ex Rel. Schrunk v. BonebrakeOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State v. CongerOregon Supreme Court · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API