Case ID: or_305/html/0043-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Submitted on State’s petition for review filed August 26, Tucker’s petition for review filed November 4 and State’s supplemental petition for review filed December 16, 1987,
    both petitions for review denied and State’s supplemental petition for review allowed; the decision of the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded to that court for consideration February 2,1988
    See 90 Or App 506, 753 P2d 427 (1988)
    STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner on Review/Respondent on Review, v. MINDI MARIE TUCKER, Respondent on Review/Petitioner on Review.
    
    (TC 85-0025; CA A36725; SC S34368, S34604)
    749 P2d 576
    Stephen F. Peifer, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the petition for review and Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the supplemental petition for review on behalf of the petitioner State of Oregon. With them on the petitions were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
    Wayne Mackeson, Portland, filed the petition for review on behalf of the petitioner Mindi Marie Tucker. With him on the petition was Des Connall and Dan Lorenz, P.C., Portland.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
   MEMORANDUM OPINION

The petitions for review of the State of Oregon and the defendant are denied. The supplemental petition for review of the State of Oregon is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the issue raised in the supplemental petition of the State of Oregon.

Peterson, C. J., and Jones, J., would have allowed review on the original petitions of the State of Oregon and defendant.