Case ID: p3d_431/html/0104-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Daniel David WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.
    A159685
    Court of Appeals of Oregon.
    November 7, 2018
    Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Laura A. Frikert, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, for petition.
    Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Patrick M. Ebbett, Assistant Attorney General, for response.
    Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge.
   PER CURIAM

Defendant petitions for reconsideration of our opinion in State v. White , 293 Or. App. 62, 426 P.3d 203 (2018), on the ground that footnote 2 of that decision inaccurately describes defendant's position with regard to arguments that were not raised in his supplemental briefing. We agree in part and replace that footnote with the following: "We confine our discussion to the probative value of the evidence with respect to delayed reporting, and we reject defendant's remaining contentions without discussion."

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.