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. Manning

Court of Appeals of Oregon

March 21, 2018

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DAVID JAMES MANNING, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and Submitted January 30, 2017

          Deschutes County Circuit Court 14FE1400 Beth M. Bagley, Judge.

          Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.

          Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

          Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Shorr, Judge. [*]

         Case Summary:

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful use of a weapon, menacing constituting domestic violence, and two counts of recklessly endangering another person. Defendant assigns error to the trial court's ruling that sustained the state's objection to a portion of defendant's closing argument.

         Held:

         The trial court did not err. The portion of defendant's closing argument at issue concerned facts not in evidence and, furthermore, was based on an impermissible inference that required too great an inferential leap.

         Affirmed.

         [290 Or.App. 847] TOOKEY, P. J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220, menacing constituting domestic violence, ORS 163.190, and two counts of recklessly endangering another person, ORS 163.195. Defendant assigns error to the trial court's ruling that sustained the state's objection to a portion of defendant's closing argument. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

         The underlying convictions arose from an escalating altercation between defendant and his then-wife, the victim, that occurred during a birthday party at their home. Subsequently, DHS received a report about the altercation after one of the children who had been at the party reported the altercation to someone at the child's school. In response to a DHS cross-report, [1] Deputy Baltzor visited the victim's house and spoke with the victim.

         At trial, during defendant's cross-examination of Baltzor, Baltzor clarified that he had first heard about the altercation from the DHS cross-report, which was initiated after a child reported the incident to DHS. Baltzor confirmed that a child, not the victim, was the impetus for the DHS report. Defendant did not ask Baltzor whether he had told the victim about the existence of the ...


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.