State v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 12 November 1964 |
| Citation | 79 Or.Adv.Sh. 431,239 Or. 87,396 P.2d 572 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Herbert Floyd MITCHELL, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Richard C. Beesley, Klamath Falls, argued the cause for appellant. On the briefs were McLaren & Beesley, Klamath Falls.
Sam A. McKeen, Deputy Dist. Atty., Klamath Falls, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dale T. Grabtree, Dist. Atty., and J. R. Thomas, Deputy Dist. Atty., Klamath Falls.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and ROSSMAN, PERRY, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN and DENECKE, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for the crime of first degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to death, the jury not having recommended life inprisonment. Oregon Constitution, Art. I, § 37.
Defendant was charged with killing Dmitre Yerkovich in a movie theater in Klamath Falls. Yerkovich had escorted defendant's former wife to the theater. Defendant entered the theater, approached his victim from behind, and shot him without warning. Defendant pleaded not guilty and gave notice of intent to rely upon insanity as a defense.
The principal assignment of error is directed at an instruction which could have been interpreted by the jury to mean that if it made no recommendation for a life sentence, the trial judge would have the power to so limit the sentence.
After this appeal was filed Governor Mark Hatfield commuted defendant's sentence to life imprisonment. Under these circumstances the question raised by this assignment of error is moot.
Defendant also assigns as error the trial court's refusal to give certain requested instructions relating to the defense of insanity. The instructions given adequately stated the law as it applied to defendant's theory of the case.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rissley
...defendant's sentencing issues moot. See, e.g., Lewis v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 31, 38, 235 S.E.2d 320, 325 (1977); State v. Mitchell, 239 Or. 87, 88, 396 P.2d 572, 573 (1964). The circuit court's judgment denying defendant postconviction relief is affirmed. Affirmed. Justice RARICK, dissenti......
-
People v. Shum
...these sentencing issues moot. See, e.g., Lewis v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 31, 38, 235 S.E.2d 320, 325 (1977); State v. Mitchell, 239 Or. 87, 88, 396 P.2d 572, 573 (1964). We, therefore, address only the viable, nonsentencing Defendant now appeals the denial of postconviction relief, raising t......
-
People v. Williams
...sentencing issue is rendered moot. See, e.g., Lewis v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 31, 38, 235 S.E.2d 320, 325 (1977); State v. Mitchell, 239 Or. 87, 88, 396 P.2d 572, 573 (1964). We, therefore, address only the nonsentencing This court has previously described the facts underlying petitioner's c......
-
People v. Ceja
...defendant's sentencing issues moot. See, e.g., Lewis v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 31, 38, 235 S.E.2d 320, 325 (1977); State v. Mitchell, 239 Or. 87, 88, 396 P.2d 572, 573 (1964).1 We exercise our discretion to retain jurisdiction of the nonsentencing issues in this case. See, e.g., McGill v. Il......