Cole v. Cupp
| Decision Date | 15 December 1970 |
| Parties | Steven COLE, Appellant, v. Hoyt C. CUPP, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, and Ken C. Hadley, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, for appellant.
Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., Jacob B. Tanzer, Sol. Gen., and Jim G. Russell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, for respondent.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FOLEY and FORT *, JJ.
Petitioner, a Negro, was convicted of statutory rape on a 15-year-old white girl and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. He appealed to the Supreme Court and the conviction was affirmed, 244 Or. 455, 418 P.2d 844 (1966). Petitioner, who was represented at the trial of conviction by a court-appointed Negro attorney, now applies for post-conviction relief.
Petitioner's claims are not properly before this court because the petition sets forth no reason why the points were not raised on direct appeal. Bias v. Cupp, Or.App., 89 Adv.Sh. 967, 462 P.2d 684 (1969), reh. den. 90 Adv.Sh. 195, 464 P.2d 721 (1970). However, in the interests of time and judicial economy, we have elected to discuss the claims rather than consider whether remand for possible amendment would be appropriate.
First, petitioner claims that he reasonably believed that the victim of the rape was over 16 years of age and, therefore, the intent to commit rape was absent. It is well settled law in Oregon that the only elements of statutory rape are sexual intercourse and the girl's age in fact. ORS 163.210. 1 State v. Gauthier, 113 Or. 297, 231 P. 141 (1924).
Second, the petitioner claims the prosecution suppressed evidence of prior sexual misconduct of the complaining witness and one other witness. Petitioner does not claim he made by request to the prosecutor for the information but merely that the prosecution suppressed the evidence by not voluntarily informing petitioner of its existence. State v. Simms, Or.App., 90 Adv.Sh. 1725, 471 P.2d 821 (1970), citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), sets forth the rule that a defendant must request information before he may complain that the prosecution suppressed evidence.
Petitioner's third claim is that his 'court appointed counsel was a Negro and therefore incompetent to effectively represent petitioner against serious crime involving heated recial tension.' Understandably petitioner cites no cases in support of this proposition. But, more important, he failed to sustain the burden which is upon him to produce evidence supporting his claim of counsel's incompetence.
Petitioner's fourth claim is that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial in that his counsel, when a juror apparently asserted he knew petitioner, failed to inquire into the nature of this knowledge and failed to challenge the juror. There is no indication that petitioner was in any particular way harmed by the presence of this juror on the jury....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krummacher v. Gierloff
...242 Or. 132, 407 P.2d 634 (1965), cert. denied 384 U.S. 908, 86 S.Ct. 1345, 16 L.Ed.2d 360 (1966); Storms v. Cupp, supra; Cole v. Cupp, 3 Or.App. 616, 475 P.2d 428, Sup.Ct. review denied (1970) and it includes the thought that if any shown incompetence had no effect on the outcome of the ca......
-
Rook v. Cupp
... ... We adopt that test. It does not change the rule that a petitioner has the burden of producing evidence supporting the claim of incompetence--Benson v. Gladden, 242 Or. 132, 407 P.2d 634 (1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 908 (1966); Storms v. Cupp, supra; Cole v. Cupp, 3 Or.App. 616, 475 P.2d 428, Sup.Ct. review denied (1970)--and it includes the thought that if any shown incompetence had no effect on the outcome of the case it will be treated as harmless. Storms v. Cupp, supra; State v. Goddard, 5 Or.App. 454, 485 P.2d 650 (1971) ... ...
-
Parks v. Cupp
...was established during the Voir dire examination of the juror. 1 The state urges that this case is governed by Cole v. Cupp, Or.App., 91 Adv.Sh. 535, 475 P.2d 428, Sup.Ct. review denied (1970), and Wheeler v. Cupp, Or.App., 90 Adv.Sh. 1503, 470 P.2d 957, Sup.Ct. review denied (1970). Here t......
-
Hussick v. State
...cert. denied, 384 U.S. 908, (86 S.Ct. 1345, 16 L.Ed.2d 360) (1966); Storms v. Cupp, (13 Or.App. 273, 508 P.2d 450), supra; Cole v. Cupp, 3 Or.App. 616, 475 P.2d 428, Sup.Ct. review denied (1970)--and it includes the thought that if any shown incompetence had no effect on the outcome of the ......