State v. Hamilton
| Decision Date | 09 June 1971 |
| Citation | 92 Adv.Sh. 575,483 P.2d 90,5 Or.App. 266 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Sherrell Hugh HAMILTON, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
John G. Meyer, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Jacob B. Tanzer, Sol. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., Salem.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FOLEY and FORT, JJ.
Defendant was convicted by jury of statutory rape on a 15-year-old girl and appeals from a judgment sentencing him to three years' imprisonment. Defendant assigns as the principal error the action of the court in allowing testimony that defendant on one occasion gave the prosecutrix some pills called 'dexes' prior to having intercourse with her and on another occasion gave her what defendant called an LSD pill prior to intercourse.
Defendant and the 15-year-old victim first met in October 1969, and saw each other covertly through February 6, 1970, against her mother's wishes. The first intercourse occurred on December 8, 1969. On that occasion defendant picked up the victim in downtown Cottage Grove and, after furnishing her some pills which he called 'dexes,' took her to a motel in Curtin, Oregon, where they had intercourse. With respect to the effect of the pills on her the victim testified:
'Q Did you tell him that you didn't want to go home?
'A Yes.
'Q And then he suggested that you go to a motel?
'A Yes.'
They had intercourse several other times and finally, on the evening of February 6, 1970, the defendant gave the victim a pill which caused her to hallucinate. After she had taken the pill he told her it was LSD. He had intercourse with her later that same evening and that was the occasion of the indictment.
When the matter of the pills was first mentioned in the state's opening statement, defendant moved for a mistrial and repeated his motion when the victim testified about his having furnished her the pills. The motions were denied.
Defendant contends that since consent is not an issue in statutory rape, the evidence that pills were given to the victim is irrelevant to the offense charged and amounts to prejudicial evidence of other crimes. The general rule is that evidence of other crimes, having no substantial relevancy except to show that the accused is a bad man and hence probably committed the principal crime, is not admissible. State v. Long, 195 Or. 81, 112, 244 P.2d 1033 (1952). However, the exceptions to the exclusionary rule are numerous. Some are set out in State v. Woolard, 2 Or.App. 446, 467 P.2d 652, Sup.Ct. review denied (1970). A more complete list of 10 exceptions is set out in McCormick, Evidence 326, 327--31, § 157 (1954), but warning is given there 'that the list is not complete, for the range of relevancy outside the ban is almost infinite.' Among the exceptions listed are:
'(1) To complete the story of the crime on trial by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wrighter
...1554-55 (7th Cir.1989) (murder); United States v. Mejia-Velez, 855 F.Supp. 607, 610-12 (E.D.N.Y.1994) (murder); State v. Hamilton, 5 Or.App. 266, 483 P.2d 90, 91 (1971) (statutory rape); State v. Shillcutt, 116 Wis.2d 227, 341 N.W.2d 716, 719-20 (Ct.App.1983) (prostitution), aff'd, 119 Wis.......
-
State v. Barnes
...the tests for admissibility of evidence with the same transaction test used for pleading purposes was misleading. State v. Hamilton, 5 Or.App. 266, 268--269, 483 P.2d 90, 91, Sup.Ct. review denied (1971), contains a discussion of the admissibility of evidence of other '* * * The general rul......
-
State v. Fleischman
...For a discussion of some of these exceptions, see State v. Lehmann, Or.App., 93 Adv.Sh. 672, 488 P.2d 1383 (1971); State v. Hamilton, Or.App., 92 Adv.Sh. 575, 483 P.2d 90, Sup.Ct. review denied (1971); State v. Woolard, 2 Or.App. 446, 467 P.2d 652, Sup.Ct. review denied (1970). Among the fr......
-
State v. O'Brien
...of other offenses in several recent cases. State v. Zimmerlee, Or.App., 92 Adv.Sh. 569, 483 P.2d 111 (1971); State v. Hamilton, Or.App., 92 Adv.Sh. 575, 483 P.2d 90 (1971); State v. Tucker, Or.App., 92 Adv.Sh. 593, 483 P.2d 825 (1971). In accordance with those cases we hold, in the language......