Legal Opinion

State v. Pusztai

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 18, 2015No. 13CR0529; A154672PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFlynn, J.

Defendant was convicted of, among other crimes, one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), ORS 164.135(l)(a).1 He assigns error to the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the statutory defense of “honest claim of right,” which is set out in ORS 164.035(1). That statute specifies, “In a prosecution for theft it is a defense that the defendant acted under an honest claim of right [.] ” Defendant argues that he was entitled to the instruction because UUV is “essentially, the theft of a vehicle.” The state responds that defendant did not present evidence to support giving the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  2. State v. MooreOregon Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State v. EyleOregon Supreme Court · 1963
  4. State v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973
  5. State v. BellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Barbosa v. BarrCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
  2. Pedro Aguirre Barbosa v. William BarrCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
  3. State v. BrowningCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  4. State v. ByamCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  5. Pedro Aguirre Barbosa v. William BarrCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API