State v. Greenwood
| Decision Date | 22 September 1975 |
| Citation | 22 Or.App. 545,540 P.2d 389 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent. v. George Idell GREENWOOD, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
J. Marvin Kuhn, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
Janet A. Metcalf, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., and W. Michael Gillette, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and THORNTON and LEE, JJ.
Defendant was convicted of murder under ORS 163.115(1)(c). 1 Defendant admitted tht he, along with a Ray Charles Maple, burglarized the residence of Monica Avio on July 25, 1974. During the course of the burglary, in which a steroand credit cards were taken, Mrs. Avio was killed by a gunshot. Defendant claims that Maple fired the shot.
After the burglary and shooting, defendant picked up two women, a Miss Ray and a Miss Gravitte, and asked them to use the credit cards stolen from the Avio residence to purchase items the defendant could sell to buy narcotics. The women complied. The state's evidence was that on the day of the homicide, Ronald Mays went to Maple's residence where Mays testified he saw Maple, two women, and the defendant. Mays said that when he arrived, Maple and the defendant were counting 'some money.' After defendant and the two women departed, Maple told Mays that the money had come from a burglary during which the defendant had shot a woman. The next day after the homicide, defendant used a record player from the Avio residence as a down payment for an automobile.
Defendant claims that the trial court erred in admitting that part of Mays's testimony in which he said Maple told him that defendant had shot a woman in the course of a burglary. ORS 41.900 provides:
'Evidence may be given of the following facts:
'* * *
'(6) After proof of a conspiracy, the declaration or act of a conspirator against his coconspirator, and relating to the conspiracy.
'* * *.'
The duration of conspiracy extends beyond the commission of the principal crime to include concomitant and closely connected disposition of its fruits or concealment of its traces. State v. Davis, Or.App., 528 P.2d 117 (1974); State v. Gardner, 225 Or. 376, 384--85, 358 P.2d 557 (1961). Just prior to Maple's statement, Maple and defendant were observed counting money. It was not until the following day that the stolen stereo was used in partial payment on a car. The credit cards were, so far as the record shows, still in possession of the defendant and Maple or the women. The intent to continue using the credit cards is inferable. There was further testimony by Miss Gravitte that the defendant and Maple were upset because there were some checks missing.
We agree with the trial judge that the cnspiracy was continuing at the time that Maple's statement was made to Mays and, therefore, the statement was admissible under ORS 41.900(6).
Although the defendant admitted his participation in the burglary, he denied his complicity in the felony-murder. The thrust of the defendant's affirmative defense was that he attempted to prevent Maple, his accomplice, from shooting the victim, Mrs. Avio.
Defendant's challenge to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Huffman
...Evidence of additional acts in furtherance of that goal, taking place the night after the trial, was admissible. State v. Greenwood, 22 Or.App. 545, 540 P.2d 389, rev. den. (1975). The jury was even entitled to infer that defendant's wife's interest in "buying" the judge or prosecutor inclu......
-
State v. Pottle
...the statements somehow further the goals of the conspiracy. State v. Farber, 56 Or.App. 351, 642 P.2d 668 (1982); State v. Greenwood, 22 Or.App. 545, 540 P.2d 389 (1975); State v. Davis, 19 Or.App. 446, 528 P.2d 117 (1974); State v. Garrison, 16 Or.App. 588, 519 P.2d 1295 (1974); State v. C......
-
State v. Livingston, 22110
...after his arrest to preserve concealment of the crimes. See State v. Campbell, 210 Kan. 265, 500 P.2d 21 (1972); State v. Greenwood, 22 Or.App. 545, 540 P.2d 389 (1975). Here, however, the statements were not made to conceal the crimes. Nevertheless, we find the admission of the statements ......
-
State v. Partee
...was made known to the trial judge during the argument on the Davis issue, it was not made an issue at the trial. State v. Greenwood, 22 Or.App. 545, 540 P.2d 389 (1975); State v. Anderson, 10 Or.App. 34, 497 P.2d 1218 (1972).6 ORS 17.250. "The jury, subject to the control of the court, in t......