Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Pack

Court of Appeals of Oregon

August 16, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RICHARD DARRYL PACK, Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted June 30, 2017

         Multnomah County Circuit Court 15CR39156; Diana I. Stuart, Judge.

          Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and John Evans, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Rebecca M. Auten, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

          Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Defendant appeals a judgment finding him in contempt of court, ORS 135.290, for violating a no-contact order that the court had imposed in a separate case for fourth-degree assault and harassment. The charging instrument in the contempt of court case and the charging instrument in the assault and harassment case were consolidated for trial. The jury acquitted defendant of fourth-degree assault and harassment. Defendant assigns error to the trial court's consolidation of the charging instruments.

         Held:

         The consolidation of the charging instruments was harmless because the court considered only evidence related to the contempt charges in reaching its verdict on those charges.

         Affirmed.

         [287 Or. 255] TOOKEY, J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment finding him in contempt of court, ORS 135.290, for violating a no-contact order that the court had imposed in a separate case for fourth-degree assault and harassment. The court entered an order consolidating the charging instrument in the contempt of court case and the charging instrument in the assault and harassment case for trial. Defendant assigns error to the trial court's consolidation of the charging instruments. We conclude that the consolidation of the charging instruments was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm.

         The facts of this case are not in dispute. On October 28, 2014, defendant was arrested and charged with fourth-degree assault and harassment. Defendant was released from custody the following day and, as a condition of his pretrial release, the court prohibited contact between defendant and the complainant.

         On January 13, 2015, defendant's pretrial release was revoked because he failed to report to his supervising officer. Defendant was taken into custody, and he called the complainant from a jail telephone seven ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.