Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Chinn

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 21, 1992No. C88-06-33770; CA A70557Published

1DissentWarren, P. J.

For the reasons stated in my dissent in State v. Emery, 115 Or App 655, 840 P2d 95 (1992), I believe that the majority erroneously concludes that, because he was not prejudiced by the state’s delay in executing the warrant, defendant was not entitled to a dismissal under ORS 131.135. Moreover, I can discern no principled distinction between the 2-year and 7-month delay between the first time that the state attempted to serve the warrant and when defendant was actually served in this case and the 2-year and 7-month delay that we found was unreasonable under ORS 131.135 in State v. Barnes, 66…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. BarnesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
  2. State v. EmeryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API