Legal Opinion

State v. Niswender

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 29, 1986No. 23-272; CA A35082PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

Defendant appeals his conviction for borrowing a game tag, ORS 497.400(2), contending that the trial court erred in denying a motion for continuance, which would have allowed the parties to secure the presence of a witness for trial. The state concedes that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s request for continuance in which the state joined. Because defendant met the requirements for obtaining a continuance for the purpose of securing a witness for trial, see State v. Otten, 234 Or 219, 223, 380 P2d 812 (1963); State v. Birchard, 23 Or App 17, 21-22, 540 P2d 1033 (1975), we agree…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. WolferOregon Supreme Court · 1965
  2. State v. SchroederCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  3. State v. OttenOregon Supreme Court · 1963
  4. State v. BirchardCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1975

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of GustafsonOregon Supreme Court · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API