Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. MICHAEL VERNON JOHNSON, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1989-01-04
Citations: 94 Or. App. 573
Docket Number: 87-CR-0033-JC, 86-CR-0345-JC; CA A46654
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. MICHAEL VERNON JOHNSON, Appellant.
Judges: Before Warden, Presiding Judge pro tempore, and Graber and Riggs, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 94
Pages: 573–574

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted September 30,1988,
affirmed January 4, 1989
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. MICHAEL VERNON JOHNSON, Appellant.
(87-CR-0033-JC, 86-CR-0345-JC; CA A46654)
(Cases Consolidated)
766 P2d 422
Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was David E. Groom, Deputy Public Defender, Salem.
Frank Gruber, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Warden, Presiding Judge pro tempore, and Graber and Riggs, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals his convictions for delivery and possession of controlled substances. ORS 475.992(1) and (4). He assigns as error the denials of his motions to controvert and the affidavit supporting the search warrant, to suppress physical evidence, and to obtain discovery of an internal investigation report concerning the conduct of the state trooper who conducted the "sting" operation.
We reject the first two assignments of error without discussion. We write only to explain that we have reviewed the sealed record and agree with the trial judge that the report contains neither exculpatory evidence nor information that would have been useful for cross-examination.
Affirmed.