State v. McPherson
| Decision Date | 24 July 1968 |
| Citation | 444 P.2d 5,250 Or. 601 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Walter Fred McPHERSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Allen L. Fallgren, Hillsboro, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Brink & Moore, Hillsboro.
Richard Smurthwaite, Dist. Atty., Hillsboro, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Before PERRY, C.J., and SLOAN and GOODWIN, JJ.
In this appeal we are asked to re-examine our decision in State v. Carlton, 1963, 233 Or. 296, 378 P.2d 557, in respect to a thief being charged with receiving and concealing stolen property. We decline to do so. In this case the indictment was charged in the conjunctive. 'Proof of any one of the acts charged was sufficient to make out the offense.' State v. Soasey, 1964, 237 Or. 167, 171, 390 P.2d 190, 192. There was such proof in the case.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pote v. State
...that he stole. State v. Para, 120 Ariz. 26, 583 P.2d 1346 (1978); Sutton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 623 S.W.2d 879 (1981); State v. McPherson, 250 Or. 601, 444 P.2d 5 (1968). In Tageant v. State, Wyo., 673 P.2d 651 (1983), there was strong evidence that Tageant had committed certain thefts. He w......
- State v. Redeman