State v. Hickmann
| Decision Date | 16 October 1975 |
| Citation | 540 P.2d 1406,273 Or. 358 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Gary Francis HICKMANN, Petitioner. . * |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
John K. Hoover, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
W. Michael Gillette, Sol. Gen., Salem., argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., Salem.
Defendant was charged with the crime of Criminal Activity in Drugs, ORS 167.207. The trial court allowed defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence seized in his tepee (his residence). The search was conducted without a warrant. The Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, reversed and remanded to the trial court to make findings as to whether or not defendant 'consented' to the police entering his home. State v. Hickmann, Or.App., 75 Adv.Sh. 1646, 534 P.2d 1153 (1975). We accepted review because the case presents a question of criminal appellate procedure.
Police officers, acting on information provided by an arrestee who stated she had purchased drugs from defendant, conducted a warrantless search of defendant's tepee. The police found and seized some marijuana. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence. The State opposed the motion, contending (1) there was probable cause to believe defendant possessed illegal drugs and (2) exigent circumstances existed justifying the search without a warrant. The trial court found that probable cause existed but there were no exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless search and seizure and allowed the defendant's motion.
The State appealed, contending the search of defendant's tepee was proper 'as being incident to a lawful arrest.' The majority opinion of the Court of Appeals found that probable cause existed and that the trial court's findings that no exigent circumstances existed were 'supported by substantial evidence and we are bound thereby.' However, the majority opinion continued:
The defendant, on appeal to this court, contends We have examined the entire record and find that the issue of 'consent' was not before the trial court on the motion to suppress and the State did not raise the issue in its appeal to the Court of Appeals. At the time of oral argument before this court, the State agreed that this is a correct statement.
Appellate courts are limited in their scope of review. Generally, on appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Montez
...will not otherwise be satisfied unless we consider the assignment. State v. Hitz, 307 Or. 183, 766 P.2d 373 (1988); State v. Hickmann, 273 Or. 358, 360, 540 P.2d 1406 (1975); State v. Braley, 224 Or. 1, 9, 355 P.2d 467 Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to include the ......
-
State v. Flores
...opinion in this court mentions Article I, section 9. Appropriate respect for the appellate process--see, e.g., State v. Hickmann, 273 Or. 358, 540 P.2d 1406 (1975) (state as appellant before Supreme Court not entitled to urge theories for reversal not previously presented to the trial court......
-
State v. Walton
...P.2d 1359 (1980), reh'g den (1981) (question not raised and preserved at trial will not be considered on appeal); State v. Hickmann, 273 Or. 358, 360, 540 P.2d 1406 (1975) (same); State v. Beeson, 248 Or. 411, 414, 434 P.2d 460 (1967) (no reversible error where no objection made at trial an......
-
Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc.
...defects any further on the grounds that plaintiff has not adequately protected her rights on appeal. See State v. Hickmann, 75 Adv.Sh. 3434, 3435--36, 273 Or. 358, 540 P.2d 1406 (1975); Wood Ind'l Corp. v. Rose, 271 Or. 103, 530 P.2d 1245 (1975); Crawford v. Jackson, 252 Or. 552, 451 P.2d 1......