State v. Eppers
| Decision Date | 12 January 1932 |
| Citation | 6 P.2d 1086,138 Or. 340 |
| Parties | STATE v. EPPERS. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Yamhill County; Arlie G. Walker, Judge.
On petition for rehearing.
Petition denied.
For former opinion, see 3 P.2d 989.
Walter B. Gleason, of Portland, for appellant.
Earl A Nott, Dist. Atty., for McMinnville, for the State.
The defendant has filed a petition for a rehearing, wherein he states: "That an inspection and review of the testimony of the witnesses for the state *** upon which the defendant and appellant's motion for a directed verdict *** was based will disclose that there is a total and utter lack of positive testimony, or of other evidence, of the value of the cow alleged to have been stolen, and therefore, there was no evidence as to that element of the alleged crime upon which the jury could pass upon, or upon which to support the verdict."
By the indictment the defendant was charged with larceny as defined by Or. Code 1930, at section 14-319, which reads: "If any person shall commit the crime of larceny by stealing any horse, gelding, mare, mule, ass, jenny, or foal, bull, steer cow, heifer, calf, hog, dog or sheep, such person, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment," etc.
Although the indictment did allege the value of the animal stolen, no allegation of value, age, color, or stock was necessary. Section 13-711, Or. Code 1930, provides: "When a crime involves the taking of or injury to an animal, the indictment is sufficiently certain in that respect if it describe the animal by the common name of its class."
The question of value was before our court in the recent case of State v. Broom, 135 Or. 641, 297 P. 340, 342. In that case the defendant was indicted for robbery, but was convicted of the crime of larceny from the person. In the indictment no value was placed upon the revolver that was alleged to have been feloniously and with violence taken from the person of the deputy sheriff, and, with reference to that phase of the case, we wrote:
See, also, the authorities cited in the succeeding paragraph.
To the effect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cervantes
...to allow the state to reopen its case and establish venue. State v. Eppers, 138 Or. 340, 346, 3 P.2d 989 (1931), reh'g den. 138 Or. 340, 354, 6 P.2d 1086 (1932). However, the court refused to take judicial notice, and it refused to allow the state to reopen its case. The state concedes that......
-
State v. Agee
...that authority occurred before the enactment of ORS 136.445. In State v. Eppers, 138 Or. 340, 346, 3 P.2d 989 (1931), on reh'g, 138 Or. 340, 6 P.2d 1086 (1932), the court held that when, after denying the defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal, the court allowed the prosecution to r......
-
State v. Priestley
...material allegation of the indictment, it is the court's duty to submit the case to the jury. State v. Eppers, 138 Ore. 340, 3 P.2d 989, 6 P.2d 1086. In State v. 85 Mont. 138, 277 P. 961, it was held that there was substantial evidence to sustain the jury's verdict of guilty. The expression......
-
State v. Jones
...may be inferred by the jury from all the evidence in the case. State v. Evans, supra; State v. Eppers, 138 Or. 340, 346, 3 P.2d 989, 6 P.2d 1086 (1932); State v. Miller, supra, State v. Casey, The state concedes that the proof of venue is minimal, but relies on judicial notice to supplement......