From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Maestas

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jul 1, 1992
833 P.2d 1348 (Or. Ct. App. 1992)

Opinion

P178846 P163840; CA A67468

Argued and submitted August 14, 1991

Affirmed July 1, 1992

Appeal from District Court, Multnomah County.

Marshall Amiton, Judge.

Gale M. Rieder, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Jas. Adams, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Deits, Judge.


PER CURIAM

Affirmed.


Defendant appeals his convictions for driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010, and reckless driving. ORS 811.140. The traffic citations alleged the place of the offense as "SE 82nd Av at or near SE Luther, City of Portland." Trial to the court was held in Multnomah County. Defendant made no motions at the end of the state's case and rested after requesting that the trial court take judicial notice of a Rand McNally map of the area where the traffic offenses took place. He did not move for a judgment of acquittal. The map indicates that the offenses took place in Clackamas County, within one mile of Multnomah County.

Defendant's assignment is that the court erred in finding him guilty, because there was no proof of venue. Defendant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence by a motion for directed verdict or a motion for judgment of acquittal and, therefore, did not preserve the error. State v. Twitty, 85 Or. App. 98, 104, 735 P.2d 1252, rev den 304 Or. 56 (1987).

Defendant suggested at oral argument, but does not argue in his brief, that this alleged failure to prove venue is an error apparent on the face of the record that we may review. ORAP 5.45(2). Assuming, without deciding, that the error is apparent on the face of the record, we decline to exercise our discretion to review the alleged error, because the record indicates that defendant's failure to preserve the error was a tactical decision.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Maestas

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jul 1, 1992
833 P.2d 1348 (Or. Ct. App. 1992)
Case details for

State v. Maestas

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOSEPH MAESTAS, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Jul 1, 1992

Citations

833 P.2d 1348 (Or. Ct. App. 1992)
833 P.2d 1348

Citing Cases

Wright Schuchart Harbor v. Johnson

Because of those differences in purpose, a party's waiver of a claim precludes that party from later…