Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DAWN LEIGH SESSION, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1989-05-03
Citations: 96 Or. App. 363
Docket Number: C-2859; CA A48317
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DAWN LEIGH SESSION, Appellant.
Judges: Before Graber, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 96
Pages: 363–364

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted March 29,
reversed and remanded for a new trial May 3,
reconsideration denied July 7,
petition for review allowed August 1, 1989 (308 Or 197)
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DAWN LEIGH SESSION, Appellant.
(C-2859; CA A48317)
772 P2d 958
Steven V. Humber, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
Diane Lefkow, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Graber, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Edmonds, J., concurring.
Riggs, J., dissenting.

Opinion:
EDMONDS, J.,
concurring.
I concur with the majority only because a panel of this court has held in a companion case on the same fact, that State v. Ainsworth, 95 Or App 240, 770 P2d 58, rev allowed 308 Or 158 (1989), controls. State v. Gohring, 95 Or App 746, 770 P2d 614 (1989). Were it not for that fact, I would hold that the facts of this case are distinguishable from Ainsworth.