Opinion · Orlaw Oregon

STATE v. ZUNIGA-ZARMIENTO, 208 Or. App. 325 (2006)

144 P.3d 1024

Type
Opinion
Court
Orlaw Oregon
Jurisdiction
Orlaw
Date
2006-09-27
Topic
general

STATE v. ZUNIGA-ZARMIENTO, 208 Or. App. 325 (2006) 144 P.3d 1024 STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RAUL ZUNIGA-ZARMIENTO, Appellant. Nos. 040241876; A124629.Oregon Court of Appeals.Submitted on record and briefs August 4, 2006.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE v. ZUNIGA-ZARMIENTO, 208 Or. App. 325 (2006). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

STATE v. ZUNIGA-ZARMIENTO,208 Or. App. 325(2006)
144 P.3d 1024
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RAUL ZUNIGA-ZARMIENTO, Appellant.
Nos. 040241876; A124629.
Oregon Court of Appeals.
Submitted on record and briefs August 4, 2006.
September 27, 2006.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County. Alicia Fuchs, Judge.
Peter A. Ozanne, Executive Director, Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Eric Johansen, Senior Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Douglas F. Zier, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Linder, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Reversed.
Page 326
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of tampering with physical evidence, ORS162.295. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court should have granted his motion for a judgment of acquittal because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant destroyed physical evidence with the intent to keep it from being used in an official proceeding. The state concedes that the evidence is insufficient and that the trial court erred. We agree and accept the state's concession.
Reversed.
Page 327