From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Paola

Oregon Court of Appeals
Aug 6, 1970
473 P.2d 690 (Or. Ct. App. 1970)

Opinion

Argued July 23, 1970

Affirmed August 6, 1970

Appeal from Circuit Court, Linn County.

COURTNEY R. JOHNS, Judge.

George V. Des Brisay, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Franklin, Bennett, Des Brisay Jolles, and Vincent G. Ierulli, Portland.

Jacob B. Tanzer, Solicitor General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Lee Johnson, Attorney General, Salem.

Before SCHWAB, Chief Judge, and LANGTRY and FORT, Judges.


AFFIRMED.


This is a companion case to State v. Shaw, 3 Or. App. 346, 473 P.2d 159, Sup Ct review denied, in which an opinion was handed down by this court on this date. The defendant in the case at hand makes two assignments of error.

His first assignment of error is that the evidence seized from the automobile in which he was apprehended should have been suppressed as the product of an unreasonable search. The search was held proper in State v. Shaw, supra.

His second assignment of error is that certain prejudicial testimony was improperly admitted at the trial. He concedes that no objection to such evidence was made at trial. Absent manifest injustice, that which was not objected to in the trial court is not reviewable on appeal. State v. Abel, 241 Or. 465, 406 P.2d 902 (1965); State v. Avent, 209 Or. 181, 302 P.2d 549 (1956). There is no such showing in this case.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Paola

Oregon Court of Appeals
Aug 6, 1970
473 P.2d 690 (Or. Ct. App. 1970)
Case details for

State v. Paola

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ROBERT WILLIAM PAOLA, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Aug 6, 1970

Citations

473 P.2d 690 (Or. Ct. App. 1970)
473 P.2d 690

Citing Cases

State v. Hickman

There is no such showing here. State v. Paola, 3 Or. App. 258, 473 P.2d 690 (1970).…

State v. Daniels

In fact the record shows that defendant's trial counsel (a different attorney) in the course of his argument…