Coon v. Cupp
| Decision Date | 26 March 1970 |
| Citation | 467 P.2d 140,90 Adv.Sh. 767,2 Or.App. 114 |
| Parties | Bruce Daniel COON, Respondent, v. Hoyt C. CUPP, Superintendant, Oregon State Penitentiary, Appellant. James Carter COUSINS, James Arnold Yates, Respondents, v. Amos E. REED, Superintendent, Oregon Correctional Institution, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Jacob B. Tanzer, Sol. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., Salem.
Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents.
Petitioners were convicted of the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. ORS 167.210. Their rights of appeal were exhausted prior to the date of State v. Hodges, 88 Or.Adv.Sh. 721, 457 P.2d 491 (1969), which declared a portion of ORS 167.210 unconstitutionally vague. ORS 167.210 reads:
'When a child is a delinquent child as defined by any statute of this state, (1) any person responsible for, or by any act encouraging, causing or contributing to the delinquency of such child, (2) or any person who by threats, command or persuasion, endeavors to induce any child to perform any act or follow any course of conduct which would cause it to become a delinquent child, (3) or any person who does any act which manifestly tends to cause any child to become a delinquent child, shall be punished upon conviction * * *.'
In post-conviction proceedings they contend that they are entitled to relief because the reasoning in Hodges which led to the declaration of unconstitutionality of the third provision of the questioned statute applies with equal force to the first provision under which they were convicted. The post-conviction court granted the relief sought and the state appeals.
The thrust of the Hodges decision is that the causes of delinquency are so broad and so uncertain that a statute which attempts to proscribe otherwise undefined behavior by language so all-encompassing as 'any act which manifestly tends to cause (delinquency)' is unconstitutionally vague.
We cannot discern a rational difference between the specificity of 'encouraging, causing or contributing,' and 'manifestly tends to cause.' The trial court correctly found that the holding in Hodges necessarily declares unconstitutional that portion of ORS 167.210 defining as crime 'any act encouraging, causing or contributing to the delinquency of such child.' These convictions are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vachon
...v. Albers, 113 N.H. --, 303 A.2d 197 (1973); Entertainment Ventures, Inc. v. Brewer, 306 F.Supp. 802 (M.D.Ala.1969); Coon v. Cupp, 2 Or.App. 114, 467 P.2d 140 (1970); State v. Hodges, 254 Or. 21, 457 P.2d 491 (1969). Paulsen, The Legal Framework For Child Protection, 66 Colum.L.Rev. 679 (19......
-
State v. Samter
...382 U.S. 399, 86 S.Ct. 518, 15 L.Ed.2d 447 (1969); State v. Hodges, 254 Or. 21, 457 P.2d 491 (1969); and Coon v. Cupp, Or.App., 91 Adv.Sh. 797, 467 P.2d 140 (1970). Giaccio lays down the following 'It is established that a law fails to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause if it i......
-
State v. McCarthy
... ... The first category is also unconstitutional and an indictment thereunder also fails to state a crime. Coon v. Cupp; Cousins et al. v. Reed, or.App., 90 Adv.Sh. 767, 467 P.2d 140 (1970) ... [2 Or.App. 348] This cause is remanded to the ... ...
-
Blakely v. Cupp
... ... 655, made such acts a separate crime and provided the same penalties as are provided under ORS 167.210. The contentions of the remaining three petitioners are dealt with by separate opinion. See Coon v. Cupp; Cousins et al. v. Reed, Or.App., 467 P.2d 140, decided this date ... The state concedes that the petitioners were convicted under an unconstitutional statute. The sole question presented on the appeals we here deal with is whether we are required to give post-conviction ... ...