From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Rupp

Oregon Supreme Court
Nov 8, 1968
251 Or. 518 (Or. 1968)

Opinion

Argued October 8, 1968.

Affirmed November 8, 1968.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County, ALAN F. DAVIS, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

John Marvin Kuhn, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.

Jacob B. Tanzer, Deputy District Attorney, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was George Van Hoomissen, District Attorney, Portland.

Before SLOAN, Presiding Justice, and GOODWIN and HOLMAN, Justices.


Defendant was convicted of armed robbery and appealed. His sole charge of error is the court's failure to instruct the jury that an accomplice's testimony must be corroborated. No request was made for such an instruction nor was any exception taken to the court's failure to so instruct.

A question not raised and preserved in the trial court will not be considered upon appeal unless upon an examination of the entire record the court can say that the error is manifest and that the ends of justice will not otherwise be satisfied. State v. Abel, 241 Or. 465, 467, 406 P.2d 902 (1965). The error was not preserved and no manifest injustice resulted. Defendant's defense was an alibi. In addition to the testimony of the accomplice, he was identified as participating in the crime by two eyewitnesses who were his victims and had an opportunity to observe him closely for a period of 10 to 15 minutes.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Rupp

Oregon Supreme Court
Nov 8, 1968
251 Or. 518 (Or. 1968)
Case details for

State v. Rupp

Case Details

Full title:STATE OR OREGON, Respondent, v. RONALD EUGENE RUPP, Appellant

Court:Oregon Supreme Court

Date published: Nov 8, 1968

Citations

251 Or. 518 (Or. 1968)
446 P.2d 516

Citing Cases

State v. Ortiz

Or at 360.Hickmann cited two earlier cases for that proposition, State v. Abel, 241 Or. 465, 406 P.2d 902…

State v. Skinner

We have repeatedly held that an appellant has no right to assert on appeal an error which could have been…