State v. Martin
| Decision Date | 21 December 1896 |
| Citation | 30 Or. 108,47 P. 196 |
| Parties | STATE v. MARTIN. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Wasco county; W.L. Bradshaw, Judge.
E Martin was convicted of a crime, and appealed. On his death the state moved to abate the appeal. Granted.
A.S Bennett, for appellant.
A.A Jayne, Dist.Atty., and C.M. Idleman, Atty.Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for the crime of forgery. From this judgment he appealed, but died before the cause could be heard in this court. His death having been suggested, the attorney general moves for an order abating the appeal. This motion must be allowed. There is no right of appeal in any case, unless given either by statute or some rule of common law; and we are advised of no common-law rule or statutory enactment authorizing the prosecution of an appeal in a criminal case in this state by the personal representatives of a deceased defendant. At common law, such an appeal could be brought by the heirs or executors to reverse an attainder of treason or felony (Bish.Cr.Proc. § 1363); but this was upon the principle that the effect of such attainder was to work the forfeiture of the estate, and thereby take from the heirs or executors, and give to the government, property belonging to them as representatives of the deceased person, and for this reason it was held that they had such an interest in the forfeited estate and judgment as entitled them to prosecute the appeal in their own right. In no other instance, it is believed, can there be found affirmative authority in the common law for the prosecution of an appeal in a criminal action by the representatives of a deceased defendant; and since our constitution provides that "no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate" (section 25, art. 1), it is clear the right to prosecute this appeal cannot be supported under the common law, and, as there is no statute authorizing such a procedure, it is manifest that the cause cannot now be heard. Indeed, to take any further proceeding in this case would be a vain and useless thing. If the appeal is to be heard, we must either affirm the judgment and order its execution, or reverse it and order a new trial. But in neither case could the judgment be carried into effect, because there is no person in existence upon whom it could operate. If affirmed, it could not be enforced against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Al Mutory
...498, 499 (1926) (stating that when a criminal defendant died while his appeal was pending his "case" was "abated"); State v. Martin, 30 Or. 108, 47 P. 196, 196 (1896) ("In [prior] cases the defendant died after the cause had been submitted to the appellate court for decision, and ... the co......
-
State v. Furth
... ... A case ... will not be retained for the purpose of determining the ... question of costs in a criminal case, which is a mere ... incident to the judgment of conviction, where the action ... itself has abated. State v. Martin, 30 Or. 108, 47 ... P. 196; Gibson v. State, 178 Ind. 315, 99 N.E. 424; ... Stancies v. State, 97 Neb. 238, 133 N.W. 412. This ... is in harmony with the view adopted in this court in civil ... cases. Vollman v. Industrial, etc., 79 Wash. 192, ... 140 P. 337 ... ...
-
Wasserman v. United States
... ... proceeding has been abated by his death. They cite in support ... of this position Herrington v. State of Georgia, 53 ... Ga. 552, O'Sullivan v. People, 144 Ill. 604, 32 ... N.E. 192, 20 L.R.A. 143, State v. Martin, 30 Or ... 108, 110, 47 P. 196, ... ...
-
Com. v. Culpepper
...Pennsylvania, 131 U.S. 396, 9 S.Ct. 794, 33 L.Ed. 222 (1888); O'Sullivan v. People, 144 Ill. 604, 32 N.E. 192 (1892); and State v. Martin, 30 Or. 108, 47 P. 196 No property rights of appellant or his estate are involved. Attainder of felony with its consequent forfeiture of property is forb......