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. Martin

Court of Appeals of Oregon

March 21, 2018

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ROBERT RAY MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted January 20, 2017

          Washington County Circuit Court C140113CR Eric Butterfeld, Judge.

          Ryan Scott argued the cause and fled the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Susan G. Howe, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

          Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

         Case Summary: Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for eight counts of felony public indecency, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in declining to give his requested jury instruction on eyewitness identifications. According to defendant, he was entitled to the instruction because it correctly stated the law, as it was based on relevant factors set out in State v. Lawson/ James, 352 Or. 724, 291 P.3d 673 (2012).

         Held: The trial court did not err in declining to give defendant's requested jury instruction. Because the instruction selected certain Lawson/James factors that were not appropriately cabined to objectively evaluate the eyewitness identification of defendant, the instruction was unduly slanted toward defendant's view of the evidence as a whole.

         Affirmed.

          [290 Or.App. 852] TOOKEY, J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for eight counts of felony public indecency, ORS 163.465(2)(b), raising five assignments of error. We write only to address defendant's first assignment of error, in which he argues that the trial court erred in declining to give defendant's special jury instruction on eyewitness identifications, and reject without discussion defendant's remaining assignments of error. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

         Defendant was charged with eight counts of public indecency. At trial, the state called seven female witnesses; each witness testified to similar circumstances concerning her encounter with defendant.

         Each witness worked at a different drive-through service window of a coffee or fast-food restaurant. In each instance, defendant pulled up to the drive-through window. As defendant approached the window, each witness saw a partially clothed white man. Defendant, who was masturbating in the front seat of his car, stared at each witness without speaking.

         Several witnesses testified that they distinctly remembered defendant's eyes. In some of the encounters, defendant obscured his face with his hand or hat. Several witnesses testified that defendant had light hair, was overweight, and was in his late thirties to mid-fifties. Several witnesses testified that defendant drove a sedan with no visible license plate and that its headlights were off. The length of the encounters varied from three seconds to two minutes.

         As part of an investigation, several witnesses were asked to participate in a "photo throw-down."[1] Before each photo throw-down, each witness signed a statement agreeing that she would review all of the photographs before making any comment. The statement also instructed each witness that she was not required to identify anyone. In [290 Or.App. 853] each instance, the police officer who administered 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.