State v. Allen
| Decision Date | 14 November 1985 |
| Citation | 76 Or.App. 263,708 P.2d 1201 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Roger Scott ALLEN, Appellant. C82-07-36518; CA A28862. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Phillip M. Margolin, Portland, argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant. With him on the supplemental brief was N/A Roger Scott Allen pro se.
Thomas H. Denney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and James E. Mountain, Jr., Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before BUTTLER, P.J., and WARREN and ROSSMAN, JJ.
Defendant appeals his convictions for escape in the first degree (Counts IV and V), kidnapping in the first degree (Counts VI and VII) and kidnapping in the second degree (Counts VIII through XI). We have considered all of his assignments of error, only one of which has merit.
With respect to the kidnapping in the first degree counts (VI and VII), the trial court instructed the jury that it could not consider the lesser included offense of kidnapping in the second degree unless it first found defendant not guilty of kidnapping in the first degree. The state concedes that that instruction was error. The question is whether we should reverse the judgment of conviction on those counts and remand for a new trial or whether we should, as the state suggests, modify the convictions on Counts VI and VII to kidnapping in the second degree and remand for resentencing on those counts.
In the past, when such an offending instruction has been given, we have sometimes reversed and remanded for a new trial. State v. Ogden, 35 Or.App. 91, 580 P.2d 1049 (1978); State v. Martin, 64 Or.App. 469, 668 P.2d 479 (1983); State v. Bird, 59 Or.App. 74, 650 P.2d 949, rev. den. 294 Or. 78, 653 P.2d 999 (1982). Given that the instruction was error, it would not have been prejudicial error if defendant had been convicted of the lesser included offense. As defendant points out, the evil of the instruction is that the jury may have been inhibited from considering the lesser included offense by virtue of the instruction. It would follow, therefore, that, if the instruction had not been given, he might have been convicted of the lesser included offense rather than the greater offense as charged. That is the most that defendant could hope for. Under the circumstances, we perceive no reason why the judgments of conviction should not be modified to convictions on the lesser...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Allen
...Gen., Salem. PER CURIAM. We allowed review in this case to decide whether to approve a rule stated by the Court of Appeals, 76 Or.App. 263, 708 P.2d 1201 (1985), concerning how a trial court in a criminal case should instruct a jury on lesser included In this case the trial court instructed......
-
State v. Wilson, 920834764; A121457.
...no reason why the judgments of conviction should not be modified to convictions on the lesser included charge." State v. Allen, 76 Or.App. 263, 265, 708 P.2d 1201 (1985). The Supreme Court rejected that rationale, noting that the "coercive effects of the jury instruction [that] prevented th......
-
State v. Allen
...In his first appeal, we modified the conviction for kidnapping in the first degree to kidnapping in the second degree. State v. Allen, 76 Or.App. 263, 708 P.2d 1201 (1985). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the trial court for retrial on the kidnapping charges. State v. Allen, 301 ......
-
State v. Allen
...94 715 P.2d 94 300 Or. 562 State v. Allen (Roger Scott) NOS. A28862, S32405 Supreme Court of Oregon MAR 04, 1986 76 Or.App. 263, 708 P.2d 1201 (Allen ALLOWED. ...