State v. Bauer
| Decision Date | 02 June 1948 |
| Citation | 183 Or. 481,193 P.2d 999 |
| Parties | STATE <I>v.</I> BAUER |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
See, 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law § 683
169 A.L.R. 315
53 Am. Jur. 498
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County.
Tyrone Gillespie, of Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Frank J. Healy, of Salem.
Lawrence B. Osterman, Deputy District Attorney, of Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was M.B. Hayden, District Attorney, of Salem.
Before ROSSMAN, Chief Justice, and LUSK, BELT, KELLY and BAILEY, Justices.
Adam Thomas Bauer was convicted of the crime of committing an act of sexual perversity and he appeals.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
On June 23, 1947, the defendant herein was indicted by the grand jury of Marion County. In the indictment, he was charged with the crime of committing an act of sexual perversity with one Howard Tebbets, a boy of the age of fifteen years. From a judgment of conviction and a sentence thereupon, defendant appeals.
No good purpose can be served by recounting the sordid and revolting testimony herein. Suffice it to say that numerous acts of sexual perversity by defendant with young Tebbets were shown to have been committed. The state elected to stand upon the proof of an act accomplished upon the date set forth in the indictment, namely, June 13, 1947.
Seasonably, defendant, by his counsel, requested the trial court inter alia to instruct the jury as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rodriguez-Castillo
...constituted an election. To be effective, an election must be confirmed to the jury by the court. See, e.g., State v. Bauer, 183 Or. 481, 482-83, 193 P.2d 999 (1948) (holding that trial court erred in failing to instruct jury in accordance with state's election); State v. Randolph, 123 Or.A......
-
State v. Pauley, CR0300333.
...an express concurrence instruction. To be effective, an election must be confirmed to the jury by the court. Compare State v. Bauer, 183 Or. 481, 482-83, 193 P.2d 999 (1948) (concluding that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury regarding the state's election in its indictme......
-
State v. Howard
...on the basis of another act, resulting in a verdict in which the requisite number of jurors did not concur. State v. Bauer, 1948, 183 Or. 481, 483, 193 P.2d 999, 1000. In the present case the State kept its proof of the act charged and the corroborative acts distinct, and the jury was caref......
-
State v. Kibler
...the jury that the state was required to prove that the crime of concealment, if any, was committed on that date. State v. Bauer, 183 Or. 481, 193 P.2d 999 (1948). The first assignment charges error because the court did not require the state to elect a specific date prior to the conclusion ......