Opinion · Orlaw Oregon

STATE v. LICHTENBERGER, 291 Or. 890 (1981)

STATE OF Or., Petitioner, v. LARRY ROBERT LICHTENBERGER, Respondent., 635 P.2d 375 (Or. 1981)

Type
Opinion
Court
Oregon
Jurisdiction
Oregon
Date
1981-11-03
Topic
general

STATE v. LICHTENBERGER, 291 Or. 890 (1981) 635 P.2d 375 STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner, v. LARRY ROBERT LICHTENBERGER, Respondent. CA 17445, SC 27357Oregon Supreme Court.Submitted on petition for review October 15, 1980. Reversed and remanded to trial court November 3, 1981.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE v. LICHTENBERGER, 291 Or. 890 (1981). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

STATE v. LICHTENBERGER,291 Or. 890(1981)
635 P.2d 375
STATE OF OREGON,Petitioner,v. LARRY ROBERT LICHTENBERGER,Respondent.
CA 17445, SC 27357
Oregon Supreme Court.
Submitted on petition for review October 15, 1980.
Reversed and remanded to trial court November 3, 1981.
In Banc
On Review from the Court of Appeals.fn*
Thomas F. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, for the petition. With him on the petition were William F. Gary, Deputy Solicitor General, John R. McCulloch, Jr., Solicitor General, and James M. Brown, Attorney General, Salem.
MEMORANDUM OPINION.

Decisions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are reversed, and case is remanded to trial court.Page 891
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.]Page 892MEMORANDUM OPINION.

Upon the authority ofState v. Scharf,288 Or. 451,605 P.2d 690(1980), the trial court allowed defendant's motion to suppress intoxilyzer evidence because defendant's request to be allowed to consult with a lawyer before submitting to the intoxilyzer test had been denied. Upon the State's appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed per curiam, citingState v. Scharf,supra.

The State timely filed a petition for review, and we delayed action on the petition pending our disposition ofState v.Newton,291 Or. 788,636 P.2d 393(1981). Our decision inNewtonoverrules the holding ofScharfthat such evidence so obtained is to be excluded.

We have, therefore, allowed the petition for review, and we now reverse the decisions of the Court of Appeals and of the trial court and remand the case for trial.

Reversed and remanded.Page 893
  1. Appeal from District Court, Washington County (No. DU-10580), Karl W. Freerksen, Judge,48 Or. App. 223,615 P.2d 1206(1980) ↩