State v. Gwyther
| Decision Date | 16 March 1971 |
| Citation | 4 Or.App. 473,479 P.2d 248,91 Adv.Sh. 1515 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. David George GWYTHER, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Max S. Taggart, II, Springfield, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Sanders, Lively & Wiswall, and William Wiswall, Springfield.
Thomas H. Denney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., and Jacob B. Tanzer, Solicitor Gen., Salem.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FOLEY and FORT, JJ.
The defendant, Gwyther, was convicted by a jury of the crime of third-degree arson. The relevant portion of the indictment read:
'The said DAVID GEORGE GWYTHER on or about the 22nd day of January, 1969, in the county aforesaid, did then and there wilfully, maliciously and wantonly set fire to, burn and cause to be burned a U.S. Navy table cover, the property of the United States of America * * *.'
On January 22, 1969, United States Navy personnel visited the University of Oregon campus to engage in recruiting. To further this activity they placed Navy literature on a table covered with a cloth which was Navy property. Gwyther and some fellow students at the University apparently decided to express their displeasure. This expression took a form characterized as a mock trial in which Gwyther was the 'judge.' He made the transition from 'judge' to criminal by burning the Navy table cover as the climax of his performance.
On appeal the defendant contends that the trial court erred in (1) instructing the jury on weaker and less satisfactory evidence, (2) instructing the jury that if they found ownership in either the Navy or the United States of America, the required showing of ownership was satisfied, (3) instructing the jury on the definition of malice, and (4) denying defendant's motion to require the state to elect the exact place it would rely upon as the place of burning.
The court instructed the jury in the language of ORS 17.250:
'(6) * * * (E)vidence is to be estimated, not only by its own intrinsic weight, but also according to the evidence which it is in the power of one side to produce and of the other to contradict; and, therefore,
'(7) * * * (I)f weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered when it appears that stronger and more satisfactory was within the power of the party, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust.'
This instruction was abstract. Both sides produced witnesses and the defendant testified in his own behalf. There is nothing in the record to indicate that stronger and more satisfactory evidence was available to either side. However, the instruction was not prejudicial and the mere fact that it was abstract does not warrant reversal. State v. Jordan, 238 Or. 184, 187, 393 P.2d 766 (1964). See also State v. Livingston, 2 Or.App. 587, 469 P.2d 632 (1970). We are of the opinion that this instruction did not in any way prevent the defendant from having a fair trial.
Defendant's second assignment of error is specious. We take judicial notice of the fact that property of the United States Navy is property of the United States.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brock
...it is not error to refuse the instruction. State v. Harwood, 45 Or.App. 931, 609 P.2d 1312, rev. den. 289 Or. 337 (1980); State v. Gwyther, 4 Or.App. 473, 479 P.2d 248, rev. den. Defendant argues that the instructions were justified because of the state's failure to produce a record of the ......
-
State v. Blake
...that she had been drugged by defendant. This alleged error has not been preserved, and we will not consider it. State v. Gwyther, 4 Or.App. 473, 476, 479 P.2d 248 (1971). The decision to grant a motion for mistrial rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Kashmir v. Patterson, 43 O......
-
Hufstetler v. State, 67571
...of OCGA § 24-1-4, dealing with matters judicially recognized, discloses no such proscription. See generally, e.g., State v. Gwyther, 4 Or.App. 473(II), 479 P.2d 248(2), (1971); City of Bexley v. Ivey, 73 Ohio L.Abs. 152, 136 N.E.2d 622(2), (1953), affd. 73 Ohio L.Abs. 154, 136 N.E.2d 624 (1......
-
State v. Dixon
...In that situation the instruction is merely abstract. See State v. Kniss, 253 Or. 450, 455 P.2d 177 (1969); State v. Gwyther, Or.App., 91 Adv.Sh. 1515, 479 P.2d 248 (1971). The trial court also clearly instructed the jury that the state had the burden of proving defendant's guilt beyond a r......