State v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 28 May 1969 |
| Citation | 253 Or. 430,455 P.2d 179 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Lawrence Gordon THOMPSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
George M. Joseph and Morrison & Bailey, Portland, for the petitioner.
No appearance contra.
Before PERRY, C.J., and McALLISTER, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN, DENECKE and HOLMAN, JJ.
In a petition for rehearing defendant urges that we apply retroactively the rules announced in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967), and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967). This we decline to do.
We applied Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), retroactively in accordance with the formula established in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 s.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965) (). We have not changed the rule with regard to the retroactivity of Escobedo.
We have applied Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966) retroactively in accordance with the formula laid down in Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966). See State v. Dills (State v. Stice), 244 Or. 188, 416 P.2d 651 (1966), and State v. Allen, 248 Or. 376, 434 P.2d 740 (1967).
With regard to United States v. Wade and Gilbert v. California and related cases, we adopt the rule of prospective application as stated in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 1205 (1967).
We find nothing in the evidence in this case with regard to the picture identification and line-up procedures to suggest a denial of due process. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). The retroactive application of United States v. Wade would not change the result in this case. The petition for rehearing is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fair
...Or. 376, 434 P.2d 740 (1967); State v. Dills; Stice, 244 Or. 188, 416 P.2d 651 (1966).5 State v. Thompson, 253 Or. 430, 452 P.2d 754, 455 P.2d 179 (1969).6 Guse v. Gladden, 243 Or. 406, 414 P.2d 317 (1966); Elliott v. Gladden, 244 Or. 134, 411 P.2d 287 (1966).7 Haynes v. Cupp, 253 Or. 566, ......
-
State v. Smith
...Supreme Court held that the Wade and Gilbert rules should be applied prospectively. In State v. Thompson, 88 Adv.Sh. 523, 524, Or., 455 P.2d 179 (1969), the Oregon Supreme Court unequivocally adopted the same rule for Oregon. The date of prospective application set up in Stovall is June 12,......
-
Edge v. State
...together in doing that which comprises each element of the offense. State v. Thompson, 253 Or. 430, 452 P.2d 754, reh. denied 455 P.2d 179 (1969); Goldsmith v. Cheney, 447 F.2d 624 (10th Cir. 1971); Jones v. State, Wyo., 568 P.2d 837 (1977); Hawkes v. State, Wyo., 626 P.2d 1041 (1981); Jaco......
- State v. Morris