Hanson v. Cupp
Court | Court of Appeals of Oregon |
Writing for the Court | Before SCHWAB; SCHWAB |
Citation | 92 Adv.Sh. 851,484 P.2d 847,5 Or.App. 312 |
Parties | Lee Roy HANSON, Respondent, v. Hoyt C. CUPP, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 06 May 1971 |
Page 847
v.
Hoyt C. CUPP, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Appellant.
Decided May 6, 1971.
[5 Or.App. 313] Jacob B. Tanzer, Sol. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., Salem.
Robert L. McKee, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FOLEY and THORNTON, JJ.
SCHWAB, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal by the defendant-warden in a post-conviction relief proceeding from an order vacating petitioner's second-degree murder conviction and granting a new trial.
The issue presented is whether or not evidence in the hands of the prosecution, but not disclosed by it to the defense was of such a character that failure to turn it over to the defense was a violation of due process. 1 We hold that the evidence amply supports the post-conviction judge's finding that it was a violation.
Petitioner Hanson met the deceased, Sharon Griffin, at a bar where she was working as a cocktail waitress on February 7, 1965, and made a date with her for the next night. He met her the next night, February 8, at the bar, where they drank until about [5 Or.App. 314] 2:30 a.m., February 9, when they left the bar together, driving away in Hanson's car.
Page 848
At 11:25 a.m. on the morning of February 9, Hanson, while driving alone, was stopped and issued a traffic citation near Boardman, Oregon, about 150 miles from Portland. He stated he was going to Pasco, Washington. He arrived at Pasco which is in southeastern Washington a little over an hour after receiving the citation, and stayed in the Pasco area until noon on February 11, when he drove from Pasco to Vancouver, Washington, and thence to Seattle.
Sharon Griffin's body was discovered on Sager Road a short distance beyond the city limits of southeast Portland on Friday evening, February 12. Death was due to strangulation. Three pathologists testified at the trial. Two of the three fixed the time of death at some time between the early hours of Tuesday, February 9, and Wednesday, February 10; the other was of the opinion that death could have occurred any time between the early hours of Tuesday, February 9, and Thursday, February 11. It follows that if Hanson killed Sharon Griffin and deposited her body where it was found, just beyond the city limits of southeast Portland, he must have done so prior to 8:00 or 9:00 on the morning of February 9, since he was positively identified as being 150 miles east of Portland by 11:25 that morning, and the evidence shows that he was hundreds of miles from Portland for several days thereafter.
At the post-conviction hearing it developed that several people had volunteered information to the police and to the deputy district attorney who prosecuted this case. Information which, if true and accurate, would have exonerated the petitioner. The state concedes that these people did in fact come forward[5 Or.App. 315] in the manner and at the time indicated at the post-conviction hearing. The state also concedes that the defense had no knowledge of this until long after trial and, as a reason for not turning this information over to the defense prior to the trial, argues only that the volunteered information was not believable.
A Mrs. Trout testified that she had arranged to take care of the home of a Mr. and Mrs. Troh while they were away. This home was located at the top of Sager Road immediately adjacent to the area where Sharon Griffin's body was found. On February 9, en route to the Troh home, she arrived at Sager Road at about 1 p.m. The private road leading to the Troh house was blocked by an automobile occupied by a man and a woman. She asked the driver to move the car so that she could get by. He complied and she drove on to the Troh house and went about her business. At about 4:30 p.m., having completed her work, she came down the road and it was again blocked by the same car. This time the woman was standing outside the car and Mrs. Trout noticed her dress and her appearance. She described the woman's clothing as substantially similar to that found on the body of Sharon Griffin. She estimated the woman's age as somewhere in the mid-30's--Sharon Griffin was 26 at the time of her death. A few days later Mrs. Trout read of the murder and saw a newspaper picture of both Sharon Griffin and the petitioner. She then went to the Clackamas County police and ultimately told this story to the Multnomah County police and the deputy district attorney.
At the post-conviction hearing she testified that the newspaper picture of Sharon Griffin which she had seen bore only a slight resemblance to Sharon [5 Or.App. 316] Griffin. 2 Mrs. Trout was then shown two pictures of Sharon Griffin's body as it was discovered. She was also shown an earlier picture of Sharon Griffin without glasses and with her hair arranged as it was at death. She testified that all these pictures bore a strong resemblance to the woman she had seen on the afternoon of February 9. She also testified that the petitioner, who was
Page 849
present at the post-conviction hearing, was not the man she had seen on February 9.The other three witnesses at the post-conviction hearing were young men named Barr, Piper and Morgan. Barr testified at the post-conviction hearing that he had given a written statement to the Multnomah County police before trial. His testimony was consistent with that statement, which was introduced at the post-conviction hearing.
Barr's testimony at the post-conviction hearing was that on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cunningham v. Premo, 06C12230
...Brady violation by withholding potentially exculpatory information about the victim's prostitution activities. See, e.g., Hanson v. Cupp, 5 Or.App. 312, 315, 484 P.2d 847 (1971) (affirming grant of post-conviction relief where prosecutor failed to disclose information which, if true and acc......
-
State v. Morrison
...Other exculpatory or mitigating information would remain subject to disclosure under Brady v. Maryland, supra, and Hanson v. Cupp (5 Or.App. 312, 484 P.2d 847 (1971))." Commentary to Proposed Oregon Criminal Procedure Code 186 In short, matters which are "statements" within the meaning of t......
-
State v. Koennecke
...charged. Indeed, in such a case the question may be raised by defendant by post-conviction proceedings. See discussion in Hanson v. Cupp, 5 Or.App. 312, 484 P.2d 847 (1971), and cases cited therein. See also Annot., 34 A.L.R.3d 16, 91--93 This case, however, involved evidence which is not c......
-
Thompson v. Cupp
...Cupp, 1 Or.App. 22, 458 P.2d 711 (1969), I again respectfully note my dissent. This court recently pointed out in Hanson v. Cupp, Or.App., 484 P.2d 847 (1971), though in a different context, that there is clearly '* * * a shift from concern with misconduct of prosecuting authorities as a fr......
-
Cunningham v. Premo, 06C12230
...Brady violation by withholding potentially exculpatory information about the victim's prostitution activities. See, e.g., Hanson v. Cupp, 5 Or.App. 312, 315, 484 P.2d 847 (1971) (affirming grant of post-conviction relief where prosecutor failed to disclose information which, if true and acc......
-
State v. Morrison
...Other exculpatory or mitigating information would remain subject to disclosure under Brady v. Maryland, supra, and Hanson v. Cupp (5 Or.App. 312, 484 P.2d 847 (1971))." Commentary to Proposed Oregon Criminal Procedure Code 186 In short, matters which are "statements" within t......
-
State v. Koennecke
...charged. Indeed, in such a case the question may be raised by defendant by post-conviction proceedings. See discussion in Hanson v. Cupp, 5 Or.App. 312, 484 P.2d 847 (1971), and cases cited therein. See also Annot., 34 A.L.R.3d 16, 91--93 This case, however, involved evidence which is not c......
-
Thompson v. Cupp
...Cupp, 1 Or.App. 22, 458 P.2d 711 (1969), I again respectfully note my dissent. This court recently pointed out in Hanson v. Cupp, Or.App., 484 P.2d 847 (1971), though in a different context, that there is clearly '* * * a shift from concern with misconduct of prosecuting authorities as a fr......