Legal Opinion
State v. Boatman
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided November 13, 2002No. C 00-03-32067; A111380PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, P. J.
Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992(1), arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained after defendant consented to the search of his briefcase. We affirm.
The trial court’s findings of historical fact are binding on us if there is constitutionally sufficient evidence in the record to support those findings. State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66, 75, 854 P2d 421 (1993). If findings were not made on all pertinent issues, we presume that the trial court decided the facts in a manner consistent with its ultimate…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Ohio v. RobinetteSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- State v. EhlyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. ToevsOregon Supreme Court · 1998
- State v. AmayaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
- State v. AuerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. RodgersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
- State v. AkubaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. KirkebyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
- State v. HitchcockCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
- State v. RaneyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.