State v. Stewart
| Citation | 11 Or. 238,4 P. 128,11 Or. 52 |
| Parties | STATE v. STEWART. |
| Decision Date | 01 March 1883 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Appeal from Clatsop county. The facts are stated in the opinion.
C.W. Fulton, for appellant.
T.R McBride, Dist. Atty., for the State.
The defendant was indicted and, after trial, convicted in the circuit court of Clatsop county for the crime of kidnaping. The defense interposed the plea of a former conviction of an assault and battery, prosecuted before a justice of the peace,--an offense punishable as a misdemeanor. The plea of a former conviction must be upon a prosecution for the same identical crime; and this depends upon the principle that no person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. 4 Bl.Comm. 336. GRAY, J., in Morey v. Com. 108 Mass. 434. The offense charged in the former and in the present case are not only distinct, but the evidence required to support the one would fall far short of establishing the other; and in such case, Mr. Chitty says: "It is inconsistent with reason, as it is repugnant to the rules of law, to say that the offenses are so far the same that an acquittal of the one will be a bar to the prosecution of the other." Chit.Crim.Law. 453; Com. v. Roby, 12 Pick. 496.
It is also objected that the court erred in refusing to permit George Hill to answer the question put for the purpose of impeaching and showing the hostility of the witness James Connon. As the object of this proof was to show hostile declarations, the ground of the court's refusal was that the foundation therefor had not been properly laid. The argument is that the same strictness of rule is not observed nor expedient, from the nature of the case, in showing hostile declarations of a witness for the purpose of affecting the value of his testimony, as in admitting contradictory statements for the same purpose. The object of the proof is the same, and the same reason exists to refresh his memory with the particular facts, and afford him an opportunity for explanation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cloutier
...properly be convicted and sentenced for both crimes. State v. Kennedy, 250 Or. 422, 443 P.2d 226 (1968). As held in State v. Stewart, 11 Or. 52, 53, 4 P. 128 (1883): " 'A single act may be an offense against two statutes; and if each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the ot......
-
State v. Brown
...* * *.'5 State v. McDonald, 231 Or. 48, 52, 365 P.2d 494 (1962); State v. Weitzel, 157 Or. 334, 340, 69 P.2d 958 (1937); State v. Stewart, 11 Or. 52, 4 P. 128 (1883).6 State v. Weitzel, note 5, supra; State v. Smith, 101 Or. 127, 199 P. 194, 16 A.L.R. 1220 (1921); State v. Magone, 33 Or. 57......
-
Klein v. Real Estate Com'r
...by this argument. It is settled law in Oregon that the guarantee against double jeopardy applies only to criminal cases. State v. Stewart, 11 Or. 52, 4 P. 128 (1883); Bailleaux v. Gladden, 230 Or. 606, 370 P.2d 722 (1962). The revocation of two licenses issued by the state, involving miscon......
-
State v. Macomber
...8 L.Ed.2d 399 (1962), is still applicable law in Oregon: 'In State v. Weitzel, 157 Or. 334, 340, 69 P.2d 958, 961, and State v. Stewart, 11 Or. 52, 53, 4 P. 128, we quoted with approval the following from Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433, "'A single act may be an offense against two sta......