State v. Gailey
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
| Citation | 301 Or. 563,725 P.2d 328 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent on review, v. Mark Edward GAILEY, Petitioner on review. CC 44751; CA A36510; SC S32500. |
| Decision Date | 26 August 1986 |
Page 328
v.
Mark Edward GAILEY, Petitioner on review.
Decided Aug. 26, 1986.
Page 329
Ernest E. Estes, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on the petition was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
Douglas F. Zier, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and James E. Mountain, Jr., Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before PETERSON, C.J., and LENT, LINDE, CAMPBELL, CARSON and JONES, JJ.
[301 Or. 565] JONES, Justice.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree burglary. Defendant appealed, contending that the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding defendant's alleged participation in a prior burglary. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion, 77 Or.App. 197, 712 P.2d 185, and defendant petitions this court for review. We reverse the Court of Appeals.
On the morning of March 21, 1985, Mary Ellen Burke drove to her house near Corvallis in Benton County and saw a turquoise Chevrolet automobile that she did not recognize parked in her driveway. When she entered her house, Mrs. Burke noticed a door that should have been locked standing ajar and found a jewelry box from the bedroom on the dining room table. In the bedroom, dresser drawers and contents were scattered on the floor.
Mrs. Burke immediately telephoned the Corvallis police to report that her house had been burglarized. She told them the first three letters of the Chevrolet's license plate, "GET," and that the car had a "USA-1" front license plate. While she was talking to the police, two men approached the front door of the house and rang the doorbell. She handed the telephone to her son and answered the door. The men told her that they had dropped off two hitchhikers and had agreed to meet them at the Burke house but could not find them. Mrs. Burke told the men that her house had been burglarized and she had called the police. The two men quickly got into the Chevrolet and left.
A Benton County deputy sheriff radioed Mrs. Burke's description of the Chevrolet to local police. At 11:30 that morning two miles from the Burke residence, a Corvallis police officer stopped defendant's vehicle, an aqua Chevrolet Nova with a "USA-1" front license plate and license plate number "GET 678." When questioned, defendant told the officer that he had left two hitchhikers at the Burke house and later became suspicious of them and returned to the house. When he returned, he saw the two hitchhikers running away from the Burke house.
Defendant was taken to jail and charged with the March 21 burglary of the Burke house. When police searched [301 Or. 566] defendant's car, they discovered jewelry later determined to have been stolen from a house in Lane County near Eugene on March 20, 1984. They also seized surgical gloves and a crowbar but did not recover from defendant or his car any property stolen from the Burke house. No fingerprints from defendant or his passenger were found in either of the two burglarized houses.
In a pretrial hearing, the state sought to introduce evidence concerning the March 20 Lane County burglary of the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Place. Jewelry found in the trunk of defendant's car had been identified as being stolen from the Place residence. The state argued that the evidence of the March 20 burglary would show defendant's knowledge, intent or lack of mistake concerning the March 21 burglary. Defendant contended that the evidence of the March 20 burglary was not relevant to
Page 330
the March 21 burglary and, if...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Haugen, 10CR0636
...fact in issue? If the item of evidence affects the balance of probabilities to any degree, it is logically relevant.” State v. Gailey,301 Or. 563, 567, 725 P.2d 328 (1986)(emphasis added).In this case, defendant argues that the internet evidence is irrelevant because the state “failed to es......
-
State v. Hampton
...fact in issue? If the item of evidence affects the balance of probabilities to any degree, it is logically relevant.' " State v. Gailey, 301 Or. 563, 567, 725 P.2d 328 (1986) (referring to Imwinkelried, Uncharged Misconduct Evidence 45, § 2.17 (1984)). 8 The trial judge must decide, pursuan......
-
State v. Hutton, A142745
...him. To admit the fourth woman's testimony in the absence of one of those conditions poses, as the court recognized in [State v. Gailey, 301 Or. 563, 725 P.2d 328 (1986) ], an unacceptable risk that the uncharged misconduct evidence is being admitted to prove the act, not the defendant's me......
-
State v. Panduro, 050229CR.
..."If the item of evidence affects the balance of probabilities to any degree, it is logically relevant." State 197 P.3d 1117 v. Gailey, 301 Or. 563, 567, 725 P.2d 328 (1986). The threshold set by OEC 401 for the admission of evidence is a "very low" one. Titus, 328 Or. at 481, 982 P.2d 1133.......