Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ARTHUR JAMES HOLLOWELL, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1974-04-15
Citations: 17 Or. App. 220
Docket Number: No. 73-1268-C
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ARTHUR JAMES HOLLOWELL, Appellant.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Port and Tanzer, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 17
Pages: 220–221

Head Matter:
Argued March 28,
affirmed April 15, 1974
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ARTHUR JAMES HOLLOWELL, Appellant.
(No. 73-1268-C)
521 P2d 15
Thomas J. Reeder, Medford, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Thomas II. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Attorney General, and W. Michael Gillette, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Port and Tanzer, Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendant assigns as error the trial court's giving of two instructions to the jury, contending that there was no evidence to support them. He does not dispute their accuracy. One of the instructions, which related to the lawfulness of defense of property by the victim, was based on ORS 161.229. The other instruc tion, regarding out-of-court statements made by defendant, was Oregon State Bar Uniform Jury Instruction No. 204.01, which is based on ORS 17.250 (4). Our review of the record reveals that there is some evidence to support the giving of both instructions.
Affirmed.