State v. Pomroy
| Decision Date | 11 February 1971 |
| Citation | 4 Or.App. 564,91 Adv.Sh. 1811,480 P.2d 450 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Kenneth Kolili POMROY, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
James T. Marquoit, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Maizels & Marquoit, Portland.
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 THORNTON, JJ.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of the crime of conspiracy to commit a felony (second degree arson). ORS 161.320. 1 He appeals, contending that the trial court erred (1) in allowing the state to introduce testimony relating to an alleged crime attributable to defendant which was 'irrelevant' to the crime charged in the indictment; and (2) in failing to direct a verdict at the conclusion of the trial, because the indictment failed to describe the object of the conspiracy with sufficient specificity.
At the trial the state offered evidence and testimony which, inter alia, showed (1) that defendant and others were involved in a strike against Fry Roofing Company; and (2) that in an attempt to further the objectives of the strike by illegal means, defendant conspired with others involved in the strike effort to set fire, by use of fire bombs, to the Volney Felt Mills, Inc., property owned by the Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company. In the course of defendant's trial for this crime, the state introduced testimony from which the jury could have inferred that defendant had, about a month before the incident, been involved in setting fire, by use of a fire bomb, to an automobile owned by a strikebreaker working at the Volney Felt Mills. Defendant's counsel objected to the testimony on the ground that the burning of the strikebreaker's car was irrelevant to the crime charged in the indictment. The objection was overruled and the testimony was admitted.
Proof of other crimes, wholly independent of the offense charged, is usually inadmissible: State v. Long, 195 Or. 81, 112, 244 P.2d 1033 (1952). However, such evidence is admissible if the commission of the offense not charged in the indictment is so related to or connected with the crime charged as to establish intent, motive, similar plan or similar method of operation, etc. Matthews v. United States, 407 F.2d 1371, 1381 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied 398 U.S. 968, 90 S.Ct. 2177, 26 L.Ed.2d 554 (1970); United States v. Iacullo, 226 F.2d 788, 793 (7th Cir. 1955), cert. denied 350 U.S. 966, 76 S.Ct. 435, 100 L.Ed. 839 (1956). Both of the last two cases cited involved indictments charging criminal conspiracy.
In State v. McDonald, 231 Or. 24, 361 P.2d 1001 (1961), cert. denied 370 U.S. 903, 82 S.Ct. 1247, 8 L.Ed.2d 399 (1962), a defendant was charged with bombing delivery trucks in furtherance of a strike. The defendant objected to testimony introduced at trial which tended to prove that he had participated with another in planting a stink bomb in a drugstore located in the employer's building. The Supreme Court ruled that the testimony was admissible because the testimony concerned a
'* * * (P)articular act (which) was a part of the overall design to make more effective the strike against the newspaper.
'* * * Evidence which shows the commission of other or collateral...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Davis
...value is out-weighed by its potential prejudice. State v. Williams, 16 Or.App. 361, 518 P.2d 1049, rev. den. (1974); State v. Pomroy, 4 Or.App. 564, 480 P.2d 450 (1971). The trial court weighed the relevant factors and allowed the evidence. We find no abuse of Defendant next claims that the......
-
State v. Holmes
...the probative value of such evidence outweighs the prejudice to defendant in introducing the 'other crimes' evidence, State v. Pomroy, 4 Or.App. 564, 480 P.2d 450 (1971); State v. Lehmann, 6 Or.App. 600, 488 P.2d 1383 (1971); State v. Williams, 16 Or.App. 361, 518 P.2d 1049, Sup.Ct. Review ......
-
State v. Williams
...to repossess the set but to rob the victim of it in order to gain money. It was thus probative as to intent and plan. State v. Pomroy, 4 Or.App. 564, 480 P.2d 450 (1971); State v. McDonald, 231 Or. 24, 361 P.2d 1001 (1961), cert. den. 370 U.S. 903, 82 S.Ct. 1247, 8 L.Ed.2d 399 In addition, ......
-
State v. Wilson
...denied (1971); State v. O'Brien, Or.App., 92 Adv.Sh. 1238, 485 P.2d 434, 92 Adv.Sh. 1690, 486 P.2d 592 (1971); State v. Pomroy, Or.App., 91 Adv.Sh. 1811, 480 P.2d 450 (1971). We think the challenged evidence was In People v. Aquilante, 208 Cal.App.2d 530, 25 Cal.Rptr. 344 (1962), a similar ......