State v. Sanchez
Decision Date | 16 July 1973 |
Citation | 97 Adv.Sh. 885,511 P.2d 1231,14 Or.App. 234 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Eduardo SANCHEZ, Appellant. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
John K. Hoover, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
John H. Clough, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., and John W. Osburn, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FORT and THORNTON, JJ.
An Oregon statute permits charging several crimes in a single indictment when they arise from 'the same act or transaction.' ORS 132.560(2). Ordinarily a single indictment will lead to a single trial. For double jeopardy purposes, State v. Brown, 262 Or. 442, 497 P.2d 1191 (1972), requires, in the absence of special circumstances, that separate charges arising from 'the same act or transaction' be consolidated for a single trial. Thus, under both ORS 132.560(2) and Brown, for separate charges to be tried together they must have arisen in a single transaction. The question here presented is: What are the defendant's remedies when it appears there has been a joinder of charges that is improper because they do not arise from a single transaction?
Defendant and his accomplice, Natividad, embarked upon a four to six-hour crime spree. They first robbed two men who were together on the street. Then, apparently during another robbery, they killed a man. A knife taken from one of the two victims of the first robbery was the murder weapon. Then they committed theft of some items from a parked automobile.
Defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with two counts of robbery in the second degree, ORS 164.405, murder, ORS 163.115, and theft in the second degree, ORS 164.045. The indictment alleged all crimes were part of the same transaction. Defendant was convicted of all counts and appeals. His principal assignment of error is that a motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted on the grounds that the crimes charged were not part of the same transaction.
State v. Brown, supra, requires that separate charges arising from the same transaction be joined for trial. Brown did not elaborate on what constitutes a transaction for this purpose. Brown did cite ORS 132.560(2) for the proposition that the two crimes involved in that case could have been charged in a single indictment. 262 Or. at 458 n. 30, 497 P.2d 1191. So we assume that the Supreme Court intended that what constitutes a criminal transaction for purposes of ORS 132.560(2) also constitutes a criminal transaction for purposes of the Brown rule.
Defining transaction as used in ORS 132.560(2), in State v. Huennekens, 245 Or. 150, 152, 420 P.2d 384, 385 (1966), the court stated:
'For our immediate purpose here it is sufficient to say that the idea permeates the cases that to be joined the charges must relate to conduct or acts that are concatenated in time, place and circumstances and that the evidence of one charge would be relevant and admissible with the evidence of other charges.'
Huennekens went on to amplify the requirement of the admissibility of evidence of the separate charges by discussing cases from other jurisdictions where the evidence of one crime necessarily included or was inseparable from the evidence of the other crime. To illustrate this idea in Oregon jurisprudence, Huennekens quoted from State v. Weitzel, 157 Or. 334, 344, 69 P.2d 958, 963 (1937):
State v. Hamilton, 5 Or.App. 266, 268--269, 483 P.2d 90, 91, Sup.Ct. review denied (1971), also contains a discussion of the admissibility of evidence of other crimes:
'* * * The general rule is that evidence of other crimes, having no substantial relevancy except to show that the accused is a bad man and hence probably committed the principal crime, is not admissible. State v. Long, 195 Or. 81, 112, 244 P.2d 1033 (1952). However, the exceptions to the exclusionary rule are numerous. Some are set out in State v. Woolard, 2 Or.App. 446, 467 P.2d 652, Sup.Ct. review denied (1970). A more complete list of 10 exceptions is set out in McCormick, Evidence 326, 327--31, § 157 (1954), but warning is given there 'that the list is not complete, for the range of relevancy outside the ban is almost infinite.' Among the exceptions listed are:
To determine whether two or more crimes are part of a single transaction, Huennekens requires looking to whether evidence of one crime would be admissible during the trial of another crime. 1 But as we noted in Hamilton there are many reasons why evidence of one crime might be admissible during the trial of another crime. As we understand Huennekens and especially the reference therein to State v. Weitzel, supra, for purposes of determining what constitutes a criminal transaction only the first exception mentioned in Hamilton--to show immediate context near in time and place--is relevant.
Therefore, two or more crimes are part of a single transaction for purposes of Brown when: (1) they are closely linked in time, place and circumstances; and (2) evidence of some or all of the elements of one crime would be admissible at a trial on the other charge(s) because presentation of the evidence concerning the charge(s) on trial would necessarily include evidence of some or all of the elements of the other crime(s).
We appreciate that standards like 'closely linked' are somewhat subjective. Therefore, we believe that district attorneys would be well advised to resolve doubt concerning whether charges they wish to press were part of a single transaction in favor of joining all such charges in a single indictment or in separate indictments that they promptly move to consolidate for trial.
Applying the above standards to this case, it is clear that the two initial robberies were a single transaction. They were committed simultaneously in the same place. Presenting all the evidence of one robbery would necessarily include presenting at least some evidence of the other. Indeed, most, if not all, multiple-victim...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McKnight v. State
...v. Martinez, 549 P.2d 758, 760-61 (Colo.1976); State v. Brower, 289 N.C. 644, 224 S.E.2d 551, 561-62 (1976); State v. Sanchez, 14 Or.App. 234, 511 P.2d 1231, 1233-34 (1973); Reagan v. State, 525 S.W.2d 683, 685 The reasoning behind the rule permitting a joint trial of crimes where the evide......
-
State v. Barnes
...P.2d 1264 (1973); State v. Leverich, Or.App., 511 P.2d 1265 (1973); State v. Rook, Or.App., 511 P.2d 1245 (1973); and State v. Sanchez, Or.App., 511 P.2d 1231 (1973). ...
-
State v. Macomber
...473 P.2d 682 (1970); State v. Welch, 11 Or.App. 140, 500 P.2d 1071 (1972), reversed 264 Or. 388, 505 P.2d 910 (1973); State v. Sanchez, 14 Or.App. 234, 511 P.2d 1231, Sup.Ct. review denied (1973); and State v. Fitzgerald, 12 Or.App. 495, 506 P.2d 733, affirmed 267 Or. 266, 516 P.2d 1280 Whe......
-
State v. Ayers
...517 (1973), Sup.Ct. review denied (1974); State v. Rook, 14 Or.App. 211, 511 P.2d 1245, Sup.Ct. review denied (1973); State v. Sanchez, 14 Or.App. 234, 511 P.2d 1231, Sup.Ct. review denied (1973); State v. Ellis, 14 Or.App. 84, 511 P.2d 1264 (1973); State v. Leverich, 14 Or.App. 222, 511 P.......