State v. Clifford
| Decision Date | 10 January 1972 |
| Citation | 8 Or.App. 494,495 P.2d 49 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Richard Sheldon CLIFFORD, Appellant. . On Appellant's Petition for Rehearing |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Tyler Marshall, and Tamblyn, Bouneff, McLennan, Muller, Marshall & Hawkes, Portland, for appellant.
Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., John W. Osburn, Sol. Gen., and Al J. Laue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, for respondent.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and LANGTRY and FORT, JJ.
In our original opinion in this case the main question we considered was whether evidence that defendant lied to police investigating crimes committed by Douglas Wright was sufficient to create a jury question as to whether defendant was an accessory after the fact in that he had aided or concealed Wright within the meaning of ORS 161.230. We held that evidence of a lie Which frustrates the investigation of the principal's crime was sufficient to take such a case to the jury.
On petition for rehearing defendant contends our holding, when applied to this record, requires reversal because there is no evidence from which the jury could have found that the lie did in some degree aid Wright by hindering his apprehension.
Our consideration of the briefs submitted on the petition for rehearing leads us to the conclusion that we incorrectly construed ORS 161.230 in so far as we held that a necessary element of the crime is that the act (here the lie) 'frustrate' police investigation. While the statutory language is not as precise as it might have been, 1 we do not believe it reasonable to interpret it as requiring that the state prove (1) what the police would have done had an act not happened, and (2) what the theoretical results of those theoretical activities would have been.
On the contrary, the only reasonable interpretation of the statute as to this question is that proof of an overt act (here the lie), coupled with proof of an unlawful intent (to aid or conceal) is sufficient to constitute the crime. 2 Surely if a person hands a wanted murderer an airline ticket for the purpose of flight the crime of aiding is complete even though both are apprehended five minutes later and the ticket is unused.
Our holding here is consistent with that in People v. Duty, 269 Cal.App.2d 97, 74 Cal.Rptr. 606 (1969), which is the closest case on the facts that we have discovered.
Petition for rehearing denied.
1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Allred
... 995 P.2d 1210 165 Or. App. 226 STATE of Oregon, Respondent, ... Clifford Scott ALLRED, Appellant ... (98CR1564FE; CA A103666) ... Court of Appeals of Oregon ... Argued and Submitted May 26, 1999 ... Decided January 26, 2000 ... 995 P.2d 1211 Jesse Wm. Barton, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief ... ...
-
State v. Clifford
...an accessory after the fact to two murders and a kidnapping committed by one Douglas Wright. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 491 P.2d 1195; 495 P.2d 49, and we granted review to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty. We conclude that it was not and Ei......