State v. Gratz
| Decision Date | 26 November 1969 |
| Citation | 89 Adv.Sh. 763,254 Or. 474,461 P.2d 829 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Victor Thomas GRATZ, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Donald H. Turner, Dist. Atty., The Dalles, for appellant.
Lewis & Remington, The Dalles, for respondent.
The defendant Victor Thomas Gratz was charged in two separate counts in a single indictment with armed robbery of the persons of Catherine Helzer in Count 1 and Georgie Drinkard in Count 2. Both crimes are alleged as arising out of the same transaction.
The defendant demurred to the indictment and the demurrer was sustained by the trial court. The state appeals.
The trial court apparently sustained the demurrer upon the theory that the armed robbery of two persons at the same time and place constituted the commission of but a single crime. The charging part of the indictment is as follows:
'The Defendant, VICTOR THOMAS GRATZ, is accused by the Grand Jury of Wasco County, State of Oregon, by this Indictment of the following crimes arising out of the same transaction:
'COUNT ONE
'The Defendant, VICTOR THOMAS GRATZ, is accused of the crime of Armed Robbery committed as follows:
'The Defendant, VICTOR THOMAS GRATZ, on October 29, 1968, in Wasco County, Oregon, then and there being, and then and there being armed with a dangerous weapon, to-wit: a lug wrench, did then and there unlawfully assault one Catherine Helzer and did then and there and thereby unlawfully and feloniously rob, steal and take from the person of said Catherine Helzer certain coins and currency, money of the United States of America, said acts of the Defendant, VICTOR THOMAS GRATZ, being contrary to the statutes in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Oregon.
'COUNT TWO
'The Defendant, VICTOR THOMAS GRATZ, is accused of the crime of Armed Robbery committed for and as a part of the same transaction alleged in Count I and committed as follows:
'The Defendant, VICTOR THOMAS GRATZ, on October 29, 1968, in Wasco County, Oregon, then and there being and then and there being armed with a dangerous weapon, to-wit: a lug wrench, did then and there unlawfully assault one Georgie Drinkard and did then and there and thereby unlawfully and feloniously rob, steal and take from the person of said Georgie Drinkard certain coins and currency, money of the United States of America, said acts of said Defendant, VICTOR THOMAS GRATZ, being contrary to the statutes in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Oregon.'
The defendant relies upon State v. Clark, 46 Or. 140, 80 P. 101, wherein this court held that the stealing of several articles belonging to more than one person at the same time and place by one act constitutes but a single offense. This holding is in accord with the weight of authority and is based on the reasoning that, since there was but one overt act (the theft), a rule to the contrary would lead to incongruous and inhumane results. Anno. 28 A.L.R.2d 1187, § 3.
However, in the cases dealing with armed robbery, where the gravamen of the offense is an assault upon and a theft from the person, ORS 163.280, the courts hold that each assault and theft from a different person, although occurring at the same time and place, is a separate crime. People v. Kelly, 168 Cal.App.2d 387, 335 P.2d 955; People v. Lagomarsino, 97 Cal.App.2d 92, 217 P.2d 124; Keeton v. Commonwealth, 92 Ky. 522, 18 S.W. 359, 13 Ky.L. 748; Novak v. State, 139 Md. 538, 115 A. 853; Johns v. State, 130 Miss. 803, 95 So. 84, 85; State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cloutier
...property of several persons at one time and place held but one offense for purposes of charge in a single indictment); State v. Gratz, 254 Or. 474, 461 P.2d 829 (1969) (armed robbery of two persons at the same time and place held to constitute two offenses for purposes of indictment). But t......
-
State v. Linthwaite, s. 80-281-C
...to Use a Dangerous Weapon into one conviction. ORS 131.505(3); State v. Gilbert, 281 Or. 101, 574 P.2d 313 (1978); State v. Gratz, 254 Or. 474, 461 P.2d 829 (1969); State v. Dinkel, supra; State v. Dillman, 34 Or.App. 937, 580 P.2d 567 (1978), rev. den. 285 Or. 195 While Attempting to Use a......
-
Vigil v. State
...against the person, when contrasted with crimes against property, there are as many offenses as individuals affected. State v. Gratz, 1969, 254 Or. 474, 461 P.2d 829 (two persons robbed at same time and place). In crimes of violence, a single act constitutes a separate offense against each ......
-
State v. Knowles
...or implicit, to determine at various stages of prosecution whether conduct constitutes one or more offenses. 13 In State v. Gratz, 254 Or. 474, 461 P.2d 829 (1969), we held that an indictment charging one robbery of two people in two counts to be valid on demurrer because the statutory purp......