Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2011

State v. Gannotskiy

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Decided August 17, 2011 · Nakamoto, Ortega, Rosenblum

245 Or. App. 163; 261 P.3d 95; 2011 Ore. App. LEXIS 1148

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

State v. GANNOTSKIY (Or. Ct. App. 2011)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM

The state seeks reversal of the trial court’s pretrial order granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a blood draw administered after defendant’s arrest.1 In granting the motion to suppress, the trial court explicitly relied on this court’s opinion in State v. Machuca, 231 Or App 232, 218 P3d 145 (2009), rev’d, 347 Or 644, 227 P3d 729 (2010) (Machuca I). In explaining its conclusion, the trial court stated that, but for Machuca I, its ruling “would have been to the contrary[.]” After the trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress, the Supreme Court decided State v. Machuca, 347 Or 644, 227 P3d 729 (2010) (Machuca II), in which it reversed our decision in Machuca I. Based on Machuca II, the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress.

Reversed and remanded on appeal; affirmed on cross-appeal.

Defendant filed a notice of cross-appeal, but did not otherwise appear.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.