New trial
- application of ORCP 64 F to motion in arrest of judgment
Source:
Section 136.535 — New trial; application of ORCP 64 F to motion in arrest of judgment, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors136.html.
See also annotations under ORS 136.851 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
Motion for new trial should have been granted where evidence in the possession of the prosecutor would reasonably have been anticipated to enable the production of evidence of substantial significance for the defense. State v. Williams, 11 Or App 255, 500 P2d 722 (1972)
Where prosecutor made objectionable remarks during closing argument about defendant’s expert witness and counsel that were inappropriate and highly likely to influence jury, trial court’s failure to sustain defendant’s objections or to grant motion for new trial on grounds of misconduct of prevailing party was reversible error and defendant not required to move for mistrial or to request curative instruction to preserve error. State v. Lundbom, 96 Or App 458, 773 P2d 11 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendant did not move for new trial but only raised for first time on appeal argument that jury’s verdicts were fatally inconsistent, motion for directed verdict did not preserve as error alleged inconsistency in jury’s verdicts because motion for directed verdict comes before jury renders its verdict. State v. Smith, 101 Or App 483, 791 P2d 500 (1990)
Where appellants failed to file motions for new trial or to obtain extensions of time for filing within five days after entry of judgment, motion for new trial filed after five-day period was untimely. State v. Provonsha, 107 Or App 571, 813 P2d 563 (1991), Sup Ct review denied
Defendant waived basis for new trial motion when defendant stated at trial that he had no objection to jury verdicts. State v. Kelley, 114 Or App 262, 835 P2d 145 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
Juror misconduct used to attack verdict must be misconduct extrinsic to communication between jurors during deliberative process, or misconduct based on fraud, bribery, forcible coercion or other obstruction of justice. State v. Jones, 126 Or App 224, 868 P2d 18 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
COMPLETED CITATIONS: State v. Penland, 6 Or App 255, 486 P2d 1314 (1971), Sup Ct review denied
Law Review Citations
51 OLR 652, 653, 655 (1972)
Up to date