State v. Shipman

11 Citing cases

  1. State v. White

    4 Or. App. 151 (Or. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 7 times
    In State v. White, 4 Or. App. 151, 156, 477 P.2d 917 (1970), we stated that, "* * * the purpose of the best evidence rule is to secure the most reliable information as to the content of documents when those contents are disputed."

    In considering this assignment this court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and sustain the trial court's action if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict. State v. Livingston, 2 Or. App. 587, 469 P.2d 632 (1970); State v. Shipman, 2 Or. App. 359, 468 P.2d 921 (1970). Defendant was indicted for "knowingly uttering and publishing a forged money order."

  2. State v. Trowbridge

    540 P.2d 278 (Idaho 1975)   Cited 9 times
    In Trowbridge the Court recognized that the task before it was "to determine if the instant presumption, allowing the jury to legally presume an ultimate fact, which is one of the elements of the crime to be proved by the State beyond a reasonable doubt (knowledge or belief), from the proof of another fact (possession), affords due process, be that analysis labeled the `rational connection' test or `reasonable doubt' standard."

    Those decisions analyzed the tested presumption under the "rational connection" test announced by the United States Supreme Court in Tot v. United States, and subscribed to by that Court in more recent cases dealing with violations of federal liquor and narcotics laws. Tot held that if a statutory presumption is to be sustained, a rational connection must exist between the proven fact and the presumed fact: See State v. Redeman, 9 Or.App. 329, 496 P.2d 230 (1972); State v. Shipman, 2 Or.App. 359, 468 P.2d 921 (1970); State v. Morris, 2 Or.App. 149, 465 P.2d 892 (1970), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 972, 92 S.Ct. 2418, 32 L.Ed.2d 673 (1972).Carter v. State, 82 Nev. 246, 415 P.2d 325 (1966) ("Though possession is relevant and admissible evidence, it does not necessarily point to guilt."

  3. State v. Fredette

    696 P.2d 7 (Or. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 3 times
    In Fredette, we implied that the terms “brass knuckles” and “metal knuckles” can be used interchangeably, 72 Or.App. at 296, 696 P.2d 7, and we perceive no reason not to do so.

    In passing on the denial of defendant's motions, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and will sustain the verdict if there is any substantial evidence to support it. State v. Freeman, 4 Or. App. 627, 628, 481 P.2d 638 (1971); State v. Shipman, 2 Or. App. 359, 362, 468 P.2d 921 (1970); State v. Livingston, 2 Or. App. 587, 589, 469 P.2d 632 (1970). The state's theory at trial was that the objects were either metal knuckles or a similar instrument that could be used to inflict injury upon the person or property of another within the meaning of ORS 166.240.

  4. State v. Siens

    12 Or. App. 97 (Or. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 10 times
    In State v. Siens, 12 Or. App. 97, 504 P.2d 1056, Sup Ct review denied (1973), we made no mention of the exact elements of the extreme emotional disturbance defense.

    We test the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and consider all of the evidence. State v. Shipman, 2 Or. App. 359, 468 P.2d 921 (1970); State v. Gardner, 231 Or. 193, 372 P.2d 783 (1962). The defendant produced evidence from medical witnesses in support of his first defense of mental disease or defect.

  5. State v. Wright

    504 P.2d 1065 (Or. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 10 times
    Affirming denial of mistrial based on prosecutor's comment relating to the defendant's failure to call a witness in support of his alibi defense

    We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Long, 243 Or. 561, 415 P.2d 171 (1966); State v. Shipman, 2 Or. App. 359, 468 P.2d 921 (1970). Since the defendant produced evidence after making his first motion for acquittal, we consider all the evidence presented to the jury and not just that presented initially by the state.

  6. State v. Dixon

    5 Or. App. 113 (Or. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 16 times
    In State v. Dixon, 5 Or. App. 113, 481 P.2d 629, rev den (1971), cert den 404 U.S. 1024 (1972), we held that the chain of events leading up to defendant's arrest when he dismounted from a bus upon his arrival in Seattle was relevant to a robbery prosecution as were the circumstances that followed at the bus depot.

    In passing upon a denial of this motion, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and will sustain the denial if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict. State v. Livingston, 2 Or. App. 587, 469 P.2d 632 (1970); State v. Shipman, 2 Or. App. 359, 468 P.2d 921 (1970). Defendant was charged with armed robbery.

  7. State v. Freemen

    481 P.2d 638 (Or. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 17 times

    In passing upon the denial of defendant's motion we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and will sustain the trial court's action if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict. State v. Livingston, 2 Or. App. 587, 469 P.2d 632 (1970); State v. Shipman, 2 Or. App. 359, 468 P.2d 921 (1970). The victim, Kenneth Eugene Williams, and a police officer were the only witnesses to testify.

  8. State v. Laurel

    4 Or. App. 122 (Or. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 3 times

    In considering a motion for judgment of acquittal we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Klutke, 245 Or. 302, 421 P.2d 956 (1966); State v. Shipman, 2 Or. App. 359, 468 P.2d 921 (1970); State v. Livingston, 2 Or. App. 587, 469 P.2d 632 (1970). The problem here presented concerns first the right of a landowner or occupant to act in defense of his property, and second of his person.

  9. State v. Gill

    3 Or. App. 488 (Or. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 13 times

    This requires that this court's review of the evidence be in the light most favorable to the state, and that the trial court's action in this regard be sustained if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict. State v. Shipman, 2 Or. App. 359, 468 P.2d 921 (1970). The deceased was killed by one of two rifle shots fired from across the street into the downstairs living room of her two-story home in Portland, Oregon, on June 7, 1968, shortly after midnight.

  10. State v. Monteith

    4 Or. App. 90 (Or. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 9 times
    In State v. Monteith, 4 Or. App. 90, 477 P.2d 224 (1970), the affiant stated he had purchased hashish on January 25, and also on February 6 had observed hashish and apparatus for smoking hashish and marijuana on the premises.

    In passing upon the denial of these motions, this court should view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Klutke, 245 Or. 302, 303, 421 P.2d 956 (1966); State v. Livingston, 2 Or. App. 587, 589, 469 P.2d 632 (1970); State v. Shipman, 2 Or. App. 359, 468 P.2d 921 (1970). Defendant in his reply brief refers to his statement to Officer Lilly, "Well, what about my coat? It is cold outside."