characterizing Lindsey as having been “decided on the theory that a defendant ought not be convicted if there [is] no evidence of the substantive elements of the offense” and further describing Lindsey and Willy as “represent[ing] a very narrow exception to a general rule” of preservation
Summary of this case from State v. ReynoldsApril 27, 1982.
characterizing Lindsey as having been “decided on the theory that a defendant ought not be convicted if there [is] no evidence of the substantive elements of the offense” and further describing Lindsey and Willy as “represent[ing] a very narrow exception to a general rule” of preservation
Summary of this case from State v. ReynoldsFull title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ALLOWED AND DENIED
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Apr 27, 1982
The state argues that, because defendant did not advance this argument below, we should not consider it here.…
State v. ReynoldsThus, in Lindsey, we phrased and framed the exercise of discretion as pertaining to our “consider[ation]” of…