State v. Edmonson
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
| Writing for the Court | Before DENECKE; LINDE |
| Citation | 291 Or. 251,630 P.2d 822 |
| Decision Date | 23 June 1981 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Daniel Victor EDMONSON, Petitioner. TC 1079-03959; CA 15957; SC 27319. |
Page 822
v.
Daniel Victor EDMONSON, Petitioner.
Decided June 23, 1981.
Ross Shepard, Asst. Director, Public Defender Services of Lane County, etc., Eugene, argued the cause for petitioner. On the brief were Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, and Marianne Bottini, Deputy Public Defender.
Robert C. Cannon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were James M. [291 Or. 252] Brown, Atty. Gen., John R. McCulloch, Jr., Sol. Gen., William F. Gary, Deputy Sol. Gen., and Robert Bulkley, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen.
Before DENECKE, C. J., and TONGUE, LENT, LINDE and PETERSON, JJ.
[291 Or. 253] LINDE, Justice.
Defendant appealed his convictions of attempted murder and of illegal possession of a weapon, ORS 166.270, on several grounds,
Page 823
including denial of his request for a preliminary hearing after indictment. Upon affirmance by the Court of Appeals, 47 Or.App. 1009, 615 P.2d 1208, defendant filed a petition for review limited to this denial of a preliminary hearing, and we granted review. We affirm the judgment.Defendant contends that to refuse an indicted defendant the procedural advantages of a preliminary hearing that are available to defendants prosecuted upon a district attorney's information denies him equal privileges or equal protection under the Oregon and United States constitutions, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court of California in Hawkins v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.3d 584, 150 Cal.Rptr. 435, 586 P.2d 916 (1978). 1
We have reviewed these contentions in State v. Clark, 291 Or. 231, 630 P.2d 810, (1981). In Clark, we held that the simple coexistence of the two means of initiating a prosecution, by information with a preliminary hearing or by indictment without one, did not in itself grant to "any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens," as forbidden by Or.Const. art. I, § 20. The two methods are capable of valid administration, if the "terms" on which one or the other method is used are defensible under the constitutional guarantees of equal treatment. We held that the attack failed "(w)ithout a showing that the administration of Or.Const. art. VII, § 5 and ORS 135.070-135.185 in fact denied defendant individually, or a class to which he belongs, the equal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Savastano, CC C081586CR
...58 Or.App. at 168–69, 647 P.2d 966.The trial court applied what it stated was its "understand[ing]" of Clark and State v. Edmonson, 291 Or. 251, 630 P.2d 822 (1981),12 concluding that, in Multnomah County, 354 Or. 85 the choice between proceeding by indictment or preliminary hearing did not......
-
State v. Farrar, C-20505
...of cases or circumstances itself reflects some articulable policy toward classes of cases. The quoted reference in [State v.] Edmonson, [291 Or. 251, 254, 630 P.2d 822 (1981) ], above, to 'social, geographic, or other classes of defendants' only relates to the validity of such a policy. An ......
-
State v. Edmonson, No. 16332
...810 (1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1084, 102 S.Ct. 640, 70 L.Ed.2d 619 (1981), continuing with State v. Edmonson, Page 462 [113 Idaho 233] 291 Or. 251, 630 P.2d 822 (1981), and State v. Freeland, 295 Or. 367, 667 P.2d 509 (1983), to support his argument that a prosecutor must afford all sim......
-
Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., No. 54610-0
...to the one developed by the Oregon Supreme Court. See, e.g., State v. Clark, 291 Or. 231, 630 Page 641 P.2d 810 (1981); State v. Edmonson, 291 Or. 251, 630 P.2d 822 In the context of tiered scrutiny, appellants argue that this court should review the noneconomic damages limit under the mid-......
-
State v. Savastano, CC C081586CR
...58 Or.App. at 168–69, 647 P.2d 966.The trial court applied what it stated was its "understand[ing]" of Clark and State v. Edmonson, 291 Or. 251, 630 P.2d 822 (1981),12 concluding that, in Multnomah County, 354 Or. 85 the choice between proceeding by indictment or preliminary hearing did not......
-
State v. Farrar, C-20505
...of cases or circumstances itself reflects some articulable policy toward classes of cases. The quoted reference in [State v.] Edmonson, [291 Or. 251, 254, 630 P.2d 822 (1981) ], above, to 'social, geographic, or other classes of defendants' only relates to the validity of such a policy. An ......
-
State v. Edmonson, No. 16332
...810 (1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1084, 102 S.Ct. 640, 70 L.Ed.2d 619 (1981), continuing with State v. Edmonson, Page 462 [113 Idaho 233] 291 Or. 251, 630 P.2d 822 (1981), and State v. Freeland, 295 Or. 367, 667 P.2d 509 (1983), to support his argument that a prosecutor must afford all sim......
-
Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., No. 54610-0
...to the one developed by the Oregon Supreme Court. See, e.g., State v. Clark, 291 Or. 231, 630 Page 641 P.2d 810 (1981); State v. Edmonson, 291 Or. 251, 630 P.2d 822 In the context of tiered scrutiny, appellants argue that this court should review the noneconomic damages limit under the mid-......