State v. Dennis
Decision Date | 12 June 1945 |
Citation | 159 P.2d 838,161 P.2d 670,177 Or. 73 |
Parties | STATE <I>v.</I> DENNIS |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
See 20 Am. Jur. 260 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 907
Before BELT, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, KELLY, BRAND and HAY, Associate Justices.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.
Andrew W. Dennis was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death, and he appeals.
AFFIRMED. REHEARING DENIED.
Edwin D. Hicks and Paul M. Long, both of Portland (Thomas H. Tongue, III, of Portland, on the brief), for appellant.
Thomas B. Handley, Deputy District Attorney, of Portland (James R. Bain, District Attorney, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.
1-3. The first assignment of error relates to the denial of defendant's motion for a directed verdict. There was no eyewitness to the killing and the State's case, therefore, stands upon circumstantial evidence. The rules concerning the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence are well established in this jurisdiction, and the innumerable citations from other states were unnecessary. Those rules may be stated as follows: The direct evidence of eyewitnesses is not necessary for conviction. The fact that a crime has been committed (the corpus delicti), and that it was done by the defendant, may be lawfully established by circumstantial evidence alone. But such evidence must be satisfactory. Mere suspicion, or mere probability of guilt, is insufficient. The evidence must be of the most cogent and convincing nature. Each fact necessary to establish guilt must be proved to the satisfaction of the jury and beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence upon which the State relies for conviction must not merely coincide with, render probable, and be consistent with, the guilt of the accused, but it must be inconsistent with any reasonable theory of his innocence and incapable of explanation upon any other rational hypothesis than that of guilt. State v. Williams, 46 Or. 287, 80 P. 655; State v. Weston, 102 Or. 102, 201 P. 1083; Oregon Box & Mfg. Co. v. Jones Lumber Co., 117 Or. 411, 244 P. 313; State v. Clark, 99 Or. 629, 196 P. 360; and State v. Evans, 143 Or. 603, 22 P. (2d) 496. If, under these rules, facts and circumstances are proven which satisfy the jury of the truth of each and every one of the material elements of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, a verdict of guilty would be warranted. This does not mean that all of the testimony must be consistent with the guilt of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Long
...additional evidence fortifying its case and removing all possible elements which might give rise to reasonable doubts. State v. Dennis, 177 Or. 73, 159 P.2d 838, 161 P.2d We turn to the evidence. Upon the close of the state's case, the defendant rested without the introduction of any testim......
-
Wiebe v. Seely
...the conclusion is reached by the use of our inveterate reasoning processes, which no statute or rule of law forbids. See State v. Dennis, 177 Or. 73, 79, 159 P.2d 838, 161 P.2d 670; McKay v. State Industrial Accident Commission, 161 Or. 191, 199, 87 P.2d 202; State v. Clark, 99 Or. 629, 666......
-
Clark v. State, 5290
...People v. Ward, 50 Cal.2d 702, 328 P.2d 777, 76 A.L.R.2d 911 (1958); State v. Roby, 128 Minn. 187, 150 N.W. 793 (1915); Sate v. Dennis, 177 Or. 73, 159 P.2d 838, 161 P.2d 670 (1945); Commonwealth v. Weber, 167 Pa. 153, 21 A. 481 1 The child testified that she was raped on the couch in the l......
-
Eitel v. Times, Inc.
...on an inference is recognized in several of our cases. Wood v. Southern Pacific Co., 1959, 216 Or. 61, 337 P.2d 779; State v. Dennis, 1945, 177 Or. 73, 159 P.2d 838, 161 P.2d 670; Hayes v. Ogle, 1933, 143 Or. 1, 21 P.2d 223; Deniff v. Charles R. McCormick Co., 1922, 105 Or. 697, 210 P. 703;......