Legal Opinion

State v. Manzella

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 12, 1987No. 60647; CA A43306PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVan Hoomissen, J.

Defendant appeals his conviction for driving while suspended. ORS 811.175(1). He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the only evidence that he was driving was his uncorroborated “confession.” See ORS 136.425(1). The question is whether there is some proof, other than defendant’s statements to a police officer at the scene of an accident, that he was driving. We conclude that there is and affirm.

Officer Erickson was the only state’s witness at trial. He testified that he was dispatched to investigate a two-car accident. When he arrived,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. ReinhartOregon Supreme Court · 1895
  2. State v. LerchOregon Supreme Court · 1984
  3. State v. WestonOregon Supreme Court · 1921
  4. State v. HowardOregon Supreme Court · 1921
  5. State v. NixCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1971

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. ManzellaOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  2. State v. EvesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API