State v. Emery
State v. Emery
Opinion of the Court
This case was before us previously and we reversed defendant’s conviction of rape for an error of law.
The first assignment asserts error by the court in allowing leading questions to be asked of the 15-year-old victim of the crime. It is ordinarily within the discretion of the court to permit leading questions on direct examination. ORS 45.560; State v. Stark, 7 Or App 145, 490 P2d 511 (1971). Bearing in mind the age of the witness, the intimate nature of the offense and the three-year interval between the offense and the present trial, we find no abuse of discretion here.
The other assignment of error is the denial of defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal made at the conclusion of the state’s case on the basis of insufficient evidence.
Affirmed.
State v. Emery, 4 Or App 527, 480 P2d 445 (1971).
ORS 136.605:
“In any criminal action the defendant may, before the presentation of evidence in his defense, move the court for a judgment of acquittal. The court shall grant the motion if the evidence introduced theretofore is such as would not support a verdict against the defendant. The acquittal shall
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.