stating that “admonition of counsel in the presence of a jury should be a rare occurrence”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “admonition of counsel in the presence of a jury should be a rare occurrence”
- “Certainly, it is appropriate for a judge to * * * eliminate argument in opening statements [.] ”
- court’s pointed reference to oath tended to embarrass expert witness and weaken his credibility
- giving examples of actions a trial court may take as part of its obligation to conduct fair and efficient proceedings
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. Sellers, 76 Or. App. 552 (1985)
295 Or 640, 669 P2d 1112 (1983), but it is inapposite.
The opinion
PETERSON, C. J.,
concurring.
I concur in the result, but disassociate myself from this statement, which appears at page 645 of the opinion:
“* * * If counsel is not present at the examination, however, the defendant should be asked by the examiner whether he understands that counsel is entitled to be present and has consented to be examined in the absence of counsel. * * *”
This court never has held that a defendant is entitled to the presence of counsel at such an examination. The issue is not directly presented in this case, and I would not decide it. Compare State ex rel Russell v. Jones, 293 Or 312, 333 , 647 P2d 904 (1982) (dissenting opinion).