From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Fox

Oregon Court of Appeals
Dec 12, 1989
98 Or. App. 356 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)

Opinion

C87-11-36697; CA A48578

Argued and submitted June 28, remanded with instructions; otherwise affirmed September 6, reconsideration denied November 17, petition for review denied December 12, 1989 ( 308 Or. 608)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

Stephen L. Gallagher, Judge.

Peter Gartlan, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.

Michael C. Livingston, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Graber, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Remanded for entry of judgment convicting defendant only for burglary in first degree and attempted aggravated felony murder with firearm; otherwise affirmed.


Defendant appeals his convictions for burglary in the first degree, ORS 164.225, attempted aggravated felony murder with a firearm, ORS 163.095, attempted murder with a firearm, ORS 163.115, and attempted assault in the first degree with a firearm. ORS 163.185. The state concedes that the attempted murder and attempted assault counts merge with the attempted aggravated felony murder count, and we remand for entry of a single judgment of conviction on the latter charge. State v. Cloutier, 286 Or. 579, 596 P.2d 1278 (1979); State v. Lavender, 68 Or. App. 514, 682 P.2d 823, rev den 297 Or. 547 (1984); see also ORS 161.062 (1).

Defendant also urges merger of the burglary and attempted aggravated felony murder counts, but he did not present that issue to the trial court. The question is a close one; therefore, any error is not egregious, and we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. State v. McNamer, 80 Or. App. 418, 420, 722 P.2d 51 (1986).

Defendant assigns error to the trial court's exclusion of expert testimony regarding the reliability of eyewitness identifications, but we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling that the proffered testimony would not be helpful to the jury. OEC 702; State v. Stringer, 292 Or. 388, 639 P.2d 1264 (1982).

Remanded for entry of judgment convicting defendant only for burglary in the first degree and attempted aggravated felony murder with a firearm; otherwise affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Fox

Oregon Court of Appeals
Dec 12, 1989
98 Or. App. 356 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)
Case details for

State v. Fox

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOSEPH SCOTT FOX, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 12, 1989

Citations

98 Or. App. 356 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)
779 P.2d 197

Citing Cases

Utley v. State

The most common reason given is that it does not help the jury and invades their function. See, e.g., United…

Trotter v. Santos

State v. Moroney, 289 Or 597, 600, 616 P2d 471 (1980). We have previously held that attempted murder with a…