From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Shelton

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jan 25, 1989
767 P.2d 496 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)

Opinion

87-2550-C-2; CA A47118

Argued and submitted July 20, 1988

Reversed and remanded January 25, 1989

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Loren L. Sawyer, Judge.

Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Mary Reese, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, and Peter Gartlan, Salem.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Riggs, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded.


Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992 (4). The state appeals a pretrial order suppressing evidence, contending that the seizure was valid under either the "plain view" or the "emergency" exception to the warrant requirement. In granting defendant's motion, the trial court stated only:

"It's close. The balance is an extremely close situation, but I think it's the Court's responsibility to resolve close calls in favor of the defendants, so I will suppress the evidence."

That order is not sufficient for effective review, because it lacks any finding of historical fact or conclusions of law. We cannot discern the factual or legal basis for the ruling. We therefore reverse the order. State v. Wise, 305 Or. 78, 81, 749 P.2d 1179 (1988); see also State v. Raygoza, 90 Or. App. 473, 475-76, 752 P.2d 1253 (1988).

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

State v. Shelton

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jan 25, 1989
767 P.2d 496 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)
Case details for

State v. Shelton

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Appellant, v. ROBERT KEITH SHELTON, Respondent

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Jan 25, 1989

Citations

767 P.2d 496 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)
767 P.2d 496

Citing Cases

State v. Shelton

On the first appeal, we reversed and remanded for findings of fact and conclusions of law. State v. Shelton,…

State v. Shelton

Because we could not discern the factual or legal basis for the trial court's ruling, we reversed and…