Opinion · Orlaw Oregon

STATE v. COLLINS, 55 Or. App. 156 (1981)

636 P.2d 1028

Type
Opinion
Court
Orlaw Oregon
Jurisdiction
Orlaw
Date
1981-12-07
Topic
general

STATE v. COLLINS, 55 Or. App. 156 (1981) 636 P.2d 1028 STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RONALD WAYNE COLLINS, Appellant. No.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE v. COLLINS, 55 Or. App. 156 (1981). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

STATE v. COLLINS,55 Or. App. 156(1981)
636 P.2d 1028
STATE OF OREGON,Respondent,v. RONALD WAYNE COLLINS,Appellant.
No. CR80-516, CA 19942
Oregon Court of Appeals.
Argued August 24, 1981.
December 7, 1981.
Petition for review denied February 3, 1982.
Appeal from District Court, Washington County, Walter W. Foster, Judge.
William M. Horner, Monmouth, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Stephen F. Peifer, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and William F. Gary, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Warren, Judge.Page 157
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals his conviction for menacing, ORS163.190, asserting five assignments of error. Four of the five assignments, as set forth in defendant's brief, fail to comply with Rule 7.19 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides, in part:
"* * * [A]ssignments of error which the court can consider only by searching a record for the proceedings complained of will not be considered and a brief not complying with the rules may be stricken."


Accordingly, we decline to consider those four assignments.State v. Cooney,36 Or. App. 217,222,584 P.2d 329(1978).

The remaining assignment of error substantially complies with Rule 7.19 in that it sets out the instruction which defendant contends he requested. That instruction, which the trial court refused to give, related to the defense of self-defense of another person, and was in proper form.State v. Castle,48 Or. App. 15,616 P.2d 510(1980). However, the only argument defendant makes is that the instruction was in proper form and that he was entitled to have it given for that reason. He points to no evidence which arguably could have supported that defense. The trial court did not err in refusing to give the requested instruction.

Affirmed.Page 158