From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Withnell

Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Nov 7, 2012
253 Or. App. 476 (Or. Ct. App. 2012)

Opinion

CR080258 A143800.

2012-11-7

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Michelle WITHNELL, Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Yamhill County. Ronald W. Stone, Judge. Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Jedediah Peterson, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Doug M. Petrina, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.


Appeal from Circuit Court, Yamhill County.
Ronald W. Stone, Judge.
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Jedediah Peterson, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Doug M. Petrina, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before SCHUMAN, Presiding Judge, and WOLLHEIM, Judge, and NAKAMOTO, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of hindering prosecution, ORS 162.325, and challenges the trial court's denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal because the state did not prove the allegations of the indictment. The issue presented here is identical to that in State v. Hansen, 253 Or.App. 407, 290 P.3d 847 (2012). Because defendant was tried jointly with the defendant in Hansen, the evidentiary record is also identical. For the reasons stated in Hansen, the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal.

Reversed.


Summaries of

State v. Withnell

Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Nov 7, 2012
253 Or. App. 476 (Or. Ct. App. 2012)
Case details for

State v. Withnell

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Michelle WITHNELL…

Court:Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Date published: Nov 7, 2012

Citations

253 Or. App. 476 (Or. Ct. App. 2012)
290 P.3d 908

Citing Cases

Euclid v. Ambler Co.

To be unconstitutional, the legislation must have no relation to health and welfare. Cusack Co. v. Chicago,…

McCown v. Gose

Slaughter v. Post, supra; Kirkwood Brothers v. City of Madisonville, 230 Ky. 104, 18 S.W.2d 951; Indian…