Motion for acquittal
- standard for granting motion
- effect
Source:
Section 136.445 — Motion for acquittal; standard for granting motion; effect, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors136.html.
See also annotations under ORS 136.605 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
If defendant elects not to stand on his motion and presents evidence in defense, appellate court must consider all evidence and if sufficient to sustain conviction, denial of motion for acquittal is not error. State v. Nix, 7 Or App 383, 491 P2d 635 (1971); State v. Jacobs, 11 Or App 218, 501 P2d 353 (1972), Sup Ct review denied
In reviewing denial of defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, court views evidence in light most favorable to state. State v. Nix, 7 Or App 383, 491 P2d 635 (1971)
There is no basis either by statute or under common law for entry of judgment non obstante verdicto in criminal case. State ex rel Haas v. Schwabe, 276 Or 853, 556 P2d 1367 (1977)
Evidence that objects consisting of metal handle with two finger holes and looped end could be used as slugging device was sufficient. State v. Fredette, 72 Or App 293, 696 P2d 7 (1985)
Granting of defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal during trial on sole ground that indictment did not state facts sufficient to establish crime did not bar later prosecution. State v. Wolfs, 312 Or 646, 826 P2d 623 (1992)
“Acquittal” is to be construed by reference to definition of acquittal in ORS 131.505. State v. Sperry, 149 Or App 690, 945 P2d 546 (1997), Sup Ct review denied
Trial court may not grant post-verdict motion for entry of judgment of acquittal. State v. Metcalfe, 328 Or 309, 974 P2d 1189 (1999)
Court may allow state to reopen case after defendant moves for judgment of acquittal. State v. Agee, 223 Or App 729, 196 P3d 1060 (2008)
Up to date