Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. GARY TAYLOR, Appellant
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1967-06-02
Citations: 247 Or. 239
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. GARY TAYLOR, Appellant.
Judges: Before Perry, Chief Justice, and Sloan, Goodwin and Fort, Justices.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 247
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
Argued May 5,
reversed and remanded June 2, 1967
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. GARY TAYLOR, Appellant.
427 P. 2d 1019
Oscar D. Rowlett, Portland, argued the cause and filed briefs for the appellant.
Jacob B. Tamer, Deputy District Attorney, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was George Van Hoomissen, District Attorney, Portland.
Before Perry, Chief Justice, and Sloan, Goodwin and Fort, Justices.

Opinion:
SLOAN, J.
Defendant was convicted on an indictment charging him with attempting to obtain a narcotic drag by presenting a forged prescription to a pharmacist. On appeal he claims he should have been granted a mistrial because of a statement made by the trial court in the presence of the jury.
The indictment charged that defendant had unlawfully attempted to obtain a "narcotic drug; to-wit, Numorphan" by a false prescription. Whether or not the drug identified by the trade name Numorphan was, in fact, a narcotic drug was an issue in the case. During the course of the trial the state presented an expert witness who was testifying as to the chemical components of Numorphan. While the witness was testifying the trial judge stated: "Can't we get a stipulation that this Numorphan is a narcotic drug? Is there any doubt about that in anybody's mind." Defendant then moved for a mistrial which was denied. When the quoted remark was made, the court did not understand that this was to be an issue in the case.
The remark was a direct comment by the court on an essential issue. The error must be considered as prejudicial. We must, therefore, reverse the case for another trial.
Reversed and remanded.