State v. Bloor
| Decision Date | 04 October 1961 |
| Citation | State v. Bloor, 229 Or. 49, 365 P.2d 103, 73 Adv.Sh. 273 (Or. 1961) |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. William D. BLOOR, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Robert G. Ringo, Corvallis, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Ringo & Walton, Corvallis.
J. Alfred Joiner, Dist. Atty., for Benton County, and Robert M. Gordon, Deputy Dist. Atty., for Benton County, Corvallis, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and ROSSMAN, PERRY, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN and BRAND, JJ.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment which the circuit court entered December 14, 1960, upon his plea of guilty to an indictment which charged him with the rape of his 13 year old daughter. (ORS 163.220). The indictment was returned by the grand jury of Benton County. The judgment sentenced the defendant to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term not exceeding 13 years.
The defendant presents two assignments of error. The first challenges a ruling which denied his motion to set aside his plea of guilty. The motion was based upon the ground that 'in the arraignment of the defendant, the Court failed and neglected to inform the defendant of his right to counsel as required by ORS 135.310 and ORS 135.320, and upon Article I, Section II, Oregon Constitution.' The second assignment of error charges that the circuit court erred when it denied the defendant's motion That motion presented contentions that the defendant was in a 'state of shock' at the time of the arraignment, that the district attorney knew that he (the defendant) denied the commission of the alleged crime, that the district attorney unfairly persuaded the defendant to plead guilty, and that the defendant was in fact innocent of the purported crime.
This case has undergone a considerable pilgrimage in the courts, and a narrative of some of its previous episodes is essential to render the assignments of error understandable.
After the defendant's arrest he told the sheriff that he would like to speak to the district attorney and thereupon the latter called upon him. The following testimony given by the district attorney, John Fenner, has not been contradicted:
The above having taken place, the sheriff brought the defendant to the district attorney's office where the ensuing questioning was recorded. The record of the questions and answers is an exhibit in this case. It has been transcribed and covers four pages. Each page was signed by the defendant. No one questions the accuracy of the transcription although the defendant, by stating that he does not remember, does not concede that the four pages are an accurate statement of the conversation.
According to the four pages, Mr. Fener began the interview by telling the defendant that he was not required to say anything and that he was entitled to have an attorney if he wished one. The defendant replied that he wished to make a statement and that he did not care for an attorney.
We now quote from the transcribed statement which designates Mr. Fenner with the letter 'F', the defendant with the letter 'B' and the sheriff (Mr. Lilly) with the letter 'L'.
'(F) Then it is your wish Mr. Bloor that at this time to make a statement regarding this matter connecting with your daugher and wife?
'(B) All I can say is just what I said before.
'(F) And what did you say before Mr. Bloor?
'(B) A man that would do anything like that is surely possessed of the devil.
'(F) And did you have intercourse with * * * [your daughter] Mr. Bloor?
'(F) I am referring to sexual intercourse Mr. Bloor.
'(B) That is what I mean sir, I didn't think that I had ever really.
'(B) Oh, yes sir she is.
'(F) Now * * * [your daughter] said that on the night of December 10th that you required her to have intercourse, sexual intercourse, with you in the jeep, is that right?
'(B) If she said so sir it is the truth.
'(F) Do you remember it?
'(F) Now do you recall how long a period you have been fooling with * * * [your daughter]?
* * *
* * *
'(F) Do you remember going down to Alsea with * * * [your daughter] on a week ago Wednesday, which would be December 10th, in the evening?
'(B) Yes sir, I remember going.
'(F) Had you been drinking that night?
'(B) Yes sir I had.
'(F) How much did you have to drink?
'(B) I don't know but it was quite a bit I know that.
'(F) And on this occasion what possessed you to have sexual intercourse with * * * [your daughter]?
'(F) Sheriff Lilly do you have anything you want to ask Mr. Bloor?
'(L) Can't you give us a little clearer picture of this than you have given us already?
'(L) This last time do you remember going to Alsea?
'(B) Yes sir I do.
'(L) To get some groceries?
'(B) Yes sir I do, I remember going to Alsea and I do remember of what you have been telling me I remember about fooling with * * * [my daughter], but as far as actual intercourse I don't remember that.
* * *
* * *
'(L) Had you been drinking that evening?
'(L) What were you drinking?
'(B) Everything.
* * *
* * *
'(F) Before you got home what did you do?
'(L) And you had her with you when you got back to the house?
'(B) Oh yes, she was with me.
'(F) Now when you said you fooled with her you mean you had sexual intercourse with her?
'(F) Well * * * [your daughter] said you did.
'(F) Well Mr. Bloor is there anything else you would like to say on your behalf, an explanation or anything else you would like to say to go on the record.
* * *
* * *
'(F) You understand that in this record you made voluntarily?
Immediately following the statement is the defendant's signature. It appears also on each of the other three pages.
The above statement has not been contradicted by the defendant. When some of its parts were read to him he replied that he could not recall whether he made them or not. His principal contention was that the district attorney persuaded him to plead guilty by telling him that it would save embarrassment for his daughter and other members of his family. The recording of the conversation makes no mention of any statement of that kind, and the district attorney denies that he spoke to the defendant upon that subject. It is agreed that he had only one interview with the defendant.
December 23, 1958, being a day or two after the defendant's visit in the office of the district attorney, he was arraigned before the Honorable Fred McHenry, judge of the Circuit Court for Benton County. He pled guilty. A complete portrayal of the defendant's appearance before Judge McHenry is set forth in Bloor v. Gladden, Or., 363 P.2d 57. At the time of the arraignment both the defendant's father and older sister were in the courtroom. The father had called upon the defendant shortly after the latter had made his statement to the district attorney. According to the father, the defendant was 'in a state of shock,' when he visited him. He added that his son ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
State v. Clevenger
...by holding that the only issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion and that it did not. State v. Bloor, 229 Or. 49, 365 P.2d 103, 365 P.2d 1075 (1961), and State v. Burnett, 228 Or. 556, 365 P.2d 1060 (1961), have been cited as post 1945 cases holding tha......
-
State v. Gidley
...in the affidavit are immaterial to the motion. The question was addressed to the sound discretion of the court, State v. Bloor, Or., 73 Adv.Sh. 273, 365 P.2d 103, 1075, and we find no abuse of that The judgment is affirmed. ...
- State v. Bloor
-
State v. Burnett
...the trial court. ORS 135.850. Therefore, the only question before this court is whether the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Bloor, Or., 365 P.2d 103. In support of his motion, the defendant filed an affidavit in which he stated that he was not guilty of the crime but that he had......