688 P.2d 63 (Or. 1984), SC 29749, State v. Maney
|Docket Nº:||C81-07-33312, CA A22694, SC 29749.|
|Citation:||688 P.2d 63, 297 Or. 620|
|Opinion Judge:||CARSON, J.|
|Party Name:||STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review, v. Paul Julian MANEY, Petitioner on Review.|
|Attorney:||Howard R. Lonergan, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on the briefs were Clint A. Lonergan and Richard L. Lonergan, Portland., Robert E. Barton, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents on review. With him on the briefs were David B. Frohnmayer, Att...|
|Case Date:||August 28, 1984|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Oregon|
Argued and Submitted Nov. 1, 1983.
[297 Or. 621] Howard R. Lonergan, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on the briefs were Clint A. Lonergan and Richard L. Lonergan, Portland.
[297 Or. 621A] Robert E. Barton, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the briefs were David B. Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and William F. Gary, Sol. Gen., Salem.
[297 Or. 622] CARSON, Justice.
The sole issue this case presents is whether a murder victim who assisted in the apprehension and arrest of defendant and would have been expected to testify at defendant's trial, but had not yet testified nor been subpenaed, was a "witness in a criminal proceeding" under the aggravated murder statute.
Defendant's indictment for aggravated murder alleged that he shot a "witness in a criminal proceeding," in violation of ORS 163.095(2)(a)(E). A jury found him guilty. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and
received as the enhanced penalty for an aggravated murder conviction a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence, without possibility of parole, work release or any form of temporary leave. ORS 163.105(2). On appeal, defendant asserted that the murder victim was not, in fact, a "witness in a criminal proceeding" within the meaning of the statute because, at the time of his death, the victim was not serving as a witness, nor was there any evidence that he had ever testified as a witness in a criminal proceeding related to defendant. 1 The Court of Appeals, 62 Or.App. 664, 662 P.2d 814, affirmed defendant's conviction without opinion. We affirm the Court of Appeals.
The murder victim in this case was a part-time security guard who, while on duty, assisted in the apprehension and arrest of defendant for shoplifting. Following defendant's apprehension, and in his presence, the victim filled out and signed the initial crime report sheet detailing the shoplifting incident. Defendant was arraigned and charged with theft in the second degree based on that incident. A trial date was set. The day following his arraignment on that charge, defendant received a copy of the crime report which the victim had signed as a witness to the incident. Approximately two months after his arraignment and two months before the trial date set for the shoplifting charge, defendant shot and killed the security guard. The state offered as evidence of defendant's motive for the murder that this arrest angered and alarmed him because he recently had been told by a judge, at a probation revocation hearing on an unrelated conviction, that if he were arrested and found guilty again, he would be sent to [297 Or. 623] jail for three years. At trial, defendant's former girlfriend testified that defendant told her he killed the victim specifically to avoid going back to prison because the victim was the principal witness against him.
ORS 163.095 defines aggravated murder as murder which is committed under, or accompanied by, any of the following circumstances:
" * * * * *
"(2)(a) The victim was one of the following and the murder was related to the performance of the victim's official duties in the justice system:
" * * *
"(E) A juror or witness in a criminal proceeding;
" * * * * *."
This part of the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP