Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Morton

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 23, 1996No. 10-93-01567B, 10-93-01567A CA A80443 (Control), CA A80444Published

1ConcurrenceDe Muniz, J.

I agree with the lead opinion’s disposition as to defendant Evans.

I feel compelled to follow State v. MacDonald, 105 Or App 102, 803 P2d 1211 (1990), rev den 311 Or 433 (1991), and other recent decisions by this court that hold that a defendant who denies having a possessoiy or ownership interest in the contraband that he or she is charged with possessing is foreclosed from seeking its exclusion under Article I, section 9. For that reason, I also concur in the lead opinion’s disposition as to defendant Morton. However, if we were writing on a clean slate, I would reach the opposite conclusion…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. DavisOregon Supreme Court · 1983
  2. State v. TannerOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  3. State v. KostaOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  4. State v. MacDonaldCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  5. State v. NelsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985

1 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