State v. Foster
| Decision Date | 16 March 1983 |
| Citation | 62 Or.App. 298,660 P.2d 200 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Kenneth FOSTER, Appellant. 81-333C; CA A22845. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Marilyn C. McManus, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
Stephen F. Peifer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and William F. Gary, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Defendant was convicted of felony murder, first degree kidnapping and criminal conspiracy. The latter charges were merged into the murder conviction for purposes of sentencing. Defendant appeals from the resulting judgment.
One of the state's principal witnesses was defendant's accomplice, Walker. Before the trial commenced and again during Walker's testimony, defendant's attorney sought rulings from the court that no mention could be made of the fact that Walker was required to take a polygraph examination as a condition of his plea agreement with the state and that defendant could impeach Walker on the basis of the plea agreement without opening the door to the state's introduction of the polygraph condition as rehabilitation evidence. The court indicated that it was inclined to admit evidence of the polygraph.
On cross-examination of the accomplice, defendant declined to ask him about the plea agreement. Had he done so, and had the polygraph condition of the agreement then been received, defendant would have had the opportunity to argue on appeal that the admission of that evidence was error. State v. Middleton, 61 Or.App. 680, 658 P.2d 555 (1983). Although the court indicated how it would rule, it was never actually called upon to make a ruling. There is no error requiring reversal. Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnson
...to rule finally on the admissibility of the prior convictions, and there is no final ruling for us to review. See State v. Foster, 62 Or.App. 298, 660 P.2d 200 (1983). Defendant's second assignment of error is that his convictions for burglary and robbery should have been "merged." 1 In Sta......
-
State v. Foster
...indicated how it would rule, it was never actually called upon to make a ruling. There is no error requiring reversal." State v. Foster, 62 Or App 298, 660 P2d 200 (1983). The first issue we address in this case is whether defense counsel adequately protected his client's record in objectin......
-
State v. Jackson, 82-1997-C-1
...that he was denied the opportunity to attempt to impeach Walker by virtue of his plea agreement. We affirmed the conviction, 62 Or.App. 298, 660 P.2d 200 (1983), holding that the defendant was required to ask whatever questions he wished to ask on cross-examination, and if the polygraph con......
-
State v. Foster
...1035 670 P.2d 1035 295 Or. 730 State v. Foster (Kenneth) NO. 29601 Supreme Court of Oregon OCT 04, 1983 62 Or.App. 298, 660 P.2d 200 ...