State v. Glenn
| Decision Date | 13 March 1963 |
| Citation | 379 P.2d 550,233 Or. 566 |
| Parties | The STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. David Hugh GLENN, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Harrison R. Winston, Roseburg, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Thomas D. O'Dell, Deputy Dist. Atty., Roseburg, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief was Avery W. Thompson, Dist. Atty., Roseburg.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and PERRY, O'CONNELL, DENECKE and LUSK, JJ.
This appeal involves two questions. Was the indictment sufficient to permit the defendant to be convicted as an aider and abettor of others having sexual intercourse with a sixteen-year-old girl? Was there any evidence that the defendant aided and abetted others in having sexual intercourse with this girl?
The indictment charging contributing to the delinquency of a child was as follows:
'* * * David Hugh Glenn * * * did * * * unlawfully * * * do an act, to-wit: engage in sexual intercourse with the said [girl] * * * which said act did manifestly then and there tend to cause the said [girl] to become a delinquent child, * * *.'
The court instructed the jury that the defendant would be guilty if he had intercourse or if he aided and abetted others in having intercourse. Aiding and abetting were defined.
One who aids and abets another in the commission of a crime is a principal to the crime and shall be indicted and tried as a principal. ORS 161.220. This court has held that one charged by an indictment stating that the defendant raped Miss X can be convicted by proof that defendant did not personally rape Miss X but aided and abetted another in raping Miss X. State v. MacLaren et al., 115 Or. 505, 237 P. 969 (1925). The same principle was followed in a sodomy case: State v. Weitzel et al., 157 Or. 334, 69 P.2d 958 (1937). An indictment for contributing to the delinquency of a child presents no different problems in regard to convicting for aiding and abetting than an indictment for rape or sodomy. The defendant here, under the indictment, could have been convicted as an aider and abettor of others having intercourse with the girl.
Was there evidence that defendant was an aider and abettor? The jury could have found the following version of what happened: The girl, the defendant, and one other man were riding in the back seat of a Volkswagen. Two male friends of the defendant were in front. The defendant tore off the pants and undergarment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Burney
...as follows: "Both our Supreme Court and this court have previously rejected such a claim, based on former ORS 161.220. State v. Glenn, 233 Or. 566, 379 P.2d 550 (1963); State v. Capitan, 8 Or.App. 582, 596, 494 P.2d 443, rev. den. (1972). Although ORS 161.220 was repealed in 1971 as part of......
-
State v. Cook
...We have held that one can be indicted as a principal and convicted by proof that he acted as an aider and abettor. State v. Glenn, 233 Or. 566, 379 P.2d 550 (1963). We have held that it was not error for the trial court to refuse to require the state to elect whether the defendant was to be......
-
State v. Capitan
...named as principal in an indictment may be convicted upon proof that he aided or abetted in the crime. See, for example, State v. Glenn, 233 Or. 566, 379 P.2d 550 (1963). Defendant contends that several errors, perhaps each not very prejudicial in itself, accumulated in this case so that th......
-
State v. Campbell
...commits the deed, the other or others have aided or abetted. State v. Brown, 113 Or. 149, 231 P. 926.' See, also, State v. Glenn, 233 Or. 566, 379 P.2d 550 (1963) and State v. Blackwell, 241 Or. 528, 407 P.2d 617 (1965). In the latter case, where the proof was that the defendant forced anot......