State v. Parker
Decision Date | 08 August 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 83-192CR,83-192CR |
Citation | 299 Or. 534,704 P.2d 1144 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review, v. Leonard Ray PARKER, Petitioner on Review. TC; CA A29923; SC S31289. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Stephen J. Williams, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on briefs was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
Thomas H. Denney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and James E. Mountain, Jr., Sol. Gen., Salem.
In Banc.
The question presented is whether a motor vehicle driver who intentionally collides with another's vehicle has had an "accident" within the meaning of ORS 483.602.
ORS 483.602 provides:
Defendant was indicted on three counts, the first for criminal mischief in the first degree, ORS 164.365; 1 the second for menacing, ORS 163.190; 2 and the third for failure to perform the duties of a driver involved in an accident, ORS 483.602. The third count alleged that the violation of ORS 483.602 arose out of the same act and transaction alleged in the first two counts, in which it was charged that defendant intentionally used his motor vehicle to damage another person's vehicle.
Defendant orally demurred to the third count "on the ground that it doesn't state a crime." 3 From the bench the trial judge stated:
"The Court is saying that Count III fails to state a cause of action because it alleges an intentional collision, and then seeks to apply the statute which pertains to an accident."
Thereafter, the court entered a written order sustaining the demurrer "on the grounds and for the reason that the facts stated in said Count do not constitute an offense."
The state appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for trial, holding that the term "accident" in ORS 483.602 includes both intentional and unintentional vehicular collisions. 4 State v. Parker, 70 Or.App. 397, 402, 689 P.2d 1035, 1038 (1984).
We allowed review to consider the issue posed at the outset of this opinion and because the first interpretation of a statute is involved. Before we reach this issue, however, we must resolve a preliminary question whether the state can appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to one count of a multi-count accusatory instrument.
ORS 138.060(1) provides that "[t]he state may take an appeal from the circuit court or the district court to the Court of Appeals from: (1) An order made prior to trial dismissing or setting aside the accusatory instrument."
In State v. Robertson, 293 Or. 402, 649 P.2d 569 (1982), defendants were indicted in a two-count indictment. The circuit court sustained a demurrer to one count, ruling that the facts alleged did not state a crime. After examining the legislative history of demurrers in criminal cases, we noted that when the Court of Appeals took jurisdiction of the Robertson case it "extended its earlier decision in STATE V. THOMAS ". 293 OR. AT 407, 649 P.2D AT 573.5 We also noted that in Thomas the Court of Appeals had voiced some doubt whether the 1971 amendments to ORS 138.060 allowed the state to appeal from orders sustaining demurrers but not dismissing the instruments, yet it had found that the addition of the words "setting aside" in 1973 covered this type of order. 293 Or. at 407, 649 P.2d at 573. We refused to disturb the Court of Appeals' decision that it could properly take jurisdiction over such an order because the amendments to ORS 138.060 were intended "to broaden the state's ability to appeal orders that invalidate accusatory instruments." 293 Or. at 407, 649 P.2d at 573.
In the present case, the state has appealed from an order sustaining defendant's demurrer to one count of a three-count indictment. Procedurally, there is no difference between the situation presented here and that in the Robertson case. As in Robertson, the order sustaining defendant's demurrer "invalidates" that portion of the accusatory instrument. Because the order sets aside one count of the accusatory instrument, jurisdiction is proper.
Further, defendant asserts the court should follow the decision in State v. Liuafi, 1 Haw.App. 625, 623 P.2d 1271 (1981), where the Hawaii Court of Appeals held the plain meaning of the word "accident," when taken into consideration with the purpose of Hawaii's "hit and run" statute, Hawaii Rev Stat § 291C-12 (1976), 6 does not include the intentional attempt to murder someone with a vehicle. Liuafi, 1 Haw.App. at 643, 623 P.2d at 1282. Liuafi was charged with and convicted of attempted murder and failure to give aid when he intentionally ran over a person. Liuafi claimed as error the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that the two offenses required inconsistent findings of fact and, as a result, under Hawaii statutes he could not be convicted of both offenses. 1 Haw.App. at 643, 623 P.2d at 1282. The court concluded that under Hawaii's criminal code, Hawaii Rev Stat § 701-109(1)(c) (1976), 7 Liuafi "could not be convicted of both attempted murder and of violation of HRS § 291C-12." (Emphasis added.) 1 Haw.App. at 643, 623 P.2d at 1282. Referring again to Hawaii Rev Stat § 701-109(1) (1976), the court said, however, that it wasn't error to charge Liuafi with both offenses. 1 Haw.App. at n. 7, 623 P.2d at n. 7. As required by Hawaii Rev Stat § 701-104 (1976) (principles of construction), the court construed the word "accident" in its usual sense, and took into consideration the context in which it is used as well as the statute's purpose.
In making its decision in this case, the Court of Appeals concluded there was "nothing in the statute [ORS 483.602] to suggest a concern that the cause of the occurrence--whether it be the result of a purely fortuitous event, simple or criminal negligence, or intentional conduct--should have any bearing on its application." 70 Or.App. at 402, 689 P.2d at 1038. We agree.
When construing a statute, "the intention of the legislature is to be pursued if possible * * *." ORS 174.020. To do so, the court may examine the language used, the statutory objective, and other evidence of the intended meaning. Curly's Dairy, Inc. v. State Dept. of Agriculture, 244 Or. 15, 21, 415 P.2d 740, 743 (1966).
244 Or. at 21, 415 P.2d at 743.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tenold v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
...the absence of such evidence, we will consider the objective of the statute to determine the legislative intent. See State v. Parker, 299 Or. 534, 540, 704 P.2d 1144 (1985). ORS 18.560 was enacted as part of the 1987 "Tort Reform Act." OrLaws 1987, ch 774, § 6. According to the legislative ......
-
State v. Wright
...v. Bohlman, 314 Or. 344, 350 n. 6, 838 P.2d 600 (1992), that holding is incorporated into the statute. See also State v. Parker, 299 Or. 534, 538-39, 704 P.2d 1144 (1985) (order sustaining demurrer to one count of multiple-count indictment is appealable) (applying Defendant argues, neverthe......
-
Choi v. State
...Cal.Rptr. 122 (1985); People v. Martinson, 161 Mich.App. 55, 409 N.W.2d 754, appeal denied, 429 Mich. 872 (1987); State v. Parker, 299 Or. 534, 704 P.2d 1144, 1149 (1985); State v. Smyth, 121 R.I. 188, 397 A.2d 497, 498-499 Apart from the technical meaning of "accident," however, we do not ......
-
State v. Harmon
...whose conduct is intentional. See, e.g., People v. Jimenez, 11 Cal.App.4th 1611, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 268, 275-6 (1992); State v. Parker, 299 Or. 534, 704 P.2d 1144, 1149 (1985). Others have reasoned that the focus of the hit-and-run statute is on the injured person, not on the cause of the accid......