Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. CARL OTTO HILL, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1984-02-15
Citations: 67 Or. App. 7
Docket Number: 82-973; CA A28735
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. CARL OTTO HILL, Appellant.
Judges: Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 67
Pages: 7–8

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted January 20,
affirmed February 15,
reconsideration denied April 6, petition for review allowed April 24,1984 (297 Or 82)
See 298 Or 270, 692 P2d 100 (1984)
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. CARL OTTO HILL, Appellant.
(82-973; CA A28735)
675 P2d 1134
Richard L. Rosenbaum, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals his convictions for assault in the third degree and carrying a concealed weapon. He raises 12 assignments of error, none of which is well taken. We write only to note that, contrary to defendant's (and, to a certain extent, the trial court's) guest passenger theory of the law of assault, it was permissible to charge and convict defendant of assault by injuring the passenger in his car through his criminally negligent operation of the car.
Affirmed.