State v. Rand
| Decision Date | 18 March 1941 |
| Parties | STATE v. RAND. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; James P. Stapleton Judge.
Dewey Rand was convicted of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Elton Watkins, of Portland, for appellant.
Clarence Potts, Deputy Dist. Atty., of Portland (James R. Bain, Dist Atty., of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.
The defendant, Dewey Rand, has appealed from a judgment sentencing him to serve thirty days in jail and pay a fine of $100, entered on the verdict of the jury finding him guilty of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
The crime with which he was charged was committed April 13, 1940. About eight-fifteen o'clock in the evening on that date, the defendant was driving in a northeasterly direction on Sandy boulevard cut-off. This boulevard forms an intersection with Northeast Eighth avenue and Northeast Stark street, and all motor vehicles before entering the intersection from any of the three streets are required to come to a stop. The defendant, however, failed to make the stop and continued along Sandy boulevard through the intersection. A short distance beyond the intersection, where the boulevard is one hundred feet wide, his car swerved to the left and ran head-on into the automobile of LeRoy G. Gaither, who had previously thereto been proceeding in a southwesterly direction on Sandy boulevard and on observing the approach of the defendant's car had driven his own car as near to the curb as possible and come to a stop.
The state's testimony showed that when the defendant got out of his car after the collision he was unable to stand without support; that he was unable to find his driver's license, which was in his wallet; that his speech was not clear; that he had an odor of liquor on his breath; that he did not know that he was driving on the wrong side of the street; that in the opinion of several witnesses he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor; that he was not injured; and that upon arriving at the police station and being questioned he admitted that he had had three drinks of intoxicating liquor earlier in the evening. Police officers testified in regard to the physical observation test, as they termed it, which they had given the defendant at the police station. During a thirty-second standing test he was unable to stand straight, and swayed perceptibly. After walking a few steps and attempting to turn when requested the lurched and had to "catch himself against a wall" to avoid falling. In a finger-to-nose exercise, "twice he did it O. K. with his right hand, and next he missed, and with his left hand he hit once here and once here and once down on his chin or neck there [indicating]." He was able to pick up coins from the desk and put them into his pocket, but had to be told a number of times before he would return them.
The defendant's explanation of the collision is that he fell asleep at the wheel of his car; that by force of the impact his head struck the wheel, stunning him; and that his unsteadiness on his feet was due to the injury to his head.
Seventeen assignments of error are noted in the defendant's brief on appeal.
The first of these assignments is that the complaint in which he is charged with the crime above stated is fatally defective, in that the "name of the person prosecuting this action is not endorsed upon" it, as required by § 26-1217, O.C.L.A. Neither the original complaint nor a certified copy thereof is in the record before this court, and therefore the matter of the sufficiency of the complaint can not be here considered.
Shortly after the collision, according to Mr. Gaither, an automobile arrived bringing two county officers, and a little later city police arrived. Mr. Gaither was asked if he knew the names of the officers, and answered: On...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rodgers
...320 (1949), with Denney v. State, 348 P.2d 359 (Okl.Cr.App.1959); State v. Duggan, 215 Or. 151, 333 P.2d 907 (1958), with State v. Rand, 166 Or. 396, 111 P.2d 82, 112 P.2d 1034 (1941); State v. La Porte, 58 Wash.2d 816, 365 P.2d 24 (1961), with State v. Frandsen, 176 Wash. 558, 30 P.2d 371 ......
-
Woolard v. Dist. Of D.C..
...128 F.2d 612, 146 A.L.R. 1; King v. Davis, 54 App.D.C. 239, 296 F. 986. 2People v. Moore, 70 Cal.App.2d 158, 160 P.2d 857; State v. Rand, 166 Or. 396, 111 P.2d 82, 112 P.2d 1034; State v. Schnell, 107 Mont. 579, 88 P.2d 19, 121 A.L.R. 1082; Bauer v. People, 103 Colo. 449, 86 P.2d 1088; Stat......
-
State v. Wright
...Ultimate facts about a state of intoxication are admissible, even if expressed in the form of conclusions. See, e.g., State v. Rand, 166 Or. 396, 401, 111 P.2d 82, 112 P.2d 1034 (1941) (question whether a person is intoxicated may fairly be considered a matter of common knowledge and a ques......
-
State v. Barnes
...of intoxication admissible to impeach result of chemical breath test even absent any foundation laid by expert testimony); State v. Rand, 166 Or. 396, 401, 111 P.2d 82, 112 P.2d 1034 (1941) (eyewitness opinion that a defendant was intoxicated held admissible because the condition is a matte......