Oregon Supreme Court· 3/21/1989

State v. McKenzie

Citations

771 P.2d 264
307 Or. 554
1989 Ore. LEXIS 112

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that successful state appeal from motion for new trial or motion for arrest of judgment restores earlier conviction
concluding that the defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction based on Article I, sec- tion 16, and stating that “[t]hat section is not an affirmative grant of authority to a defendant to have the jury instructed that it may determine the law”
considering relationship between post-verdict motion in arrest of judgment and motion for judgment of acquittal during trial
explaining double jeopardy as well as statutory bar to retrial after grant of motion for a judgment of acquittal
holding vagueness challenge proper basis for demurrer to indictment
“If a statute is constitutionally too vague, then the facts alleged in an indictment under such a statute do not and cannot constitute an offense.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Peterson, Linde, Carson, Jones, Gillette, Fadeley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.