on appeal of order dismissing charge, court generally may not review correctness of other preceding or intermediate orders
How later courts described this case
- on appeal of order dismissing charge, court generally may not review correctness of other preceding or intermediate orders
- “[t]he trial court’s obligation to hold an omnibus hearing upon the request of a party is absolute”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Questioned by State v. Vasquez-Hernandez, 159 Or. App. 64 (1999)
In holding that we could review the merits of the trial court’s decision, we distinguished Caruso on the ground that OEC 510(4)(b) treats disclosure and dismissal as a “unitary whole.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. Mueller, 96 Or. App. 185 (1989)
289 Or 315, 613 P2d 752 (1980), is inapposite.
The opinion
TONGUE, J.,
Dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the opinion by the majority because of my belief that this case was correctly decided by the Court of Appeals and that State v. Lewis, 39 Or App 151 , 591 P2d 414 (1979), as cited by the Court of Appeals in support of its opinion in this case, was also correctly decided and should not have been "disapproved” by the majority.