State v. Walker
| Decision Date | 09 September 1966 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. James Fred WALKER, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Charles R. Cater, La Grande, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Arthur R. Barrows, Deputy Dist. Atty., Pendleton, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Richard J. Courson, Dist. Atty., Pendleton.
Before McALLISTER, C.J., and PERRY, SLOAN, GOODWIN, DENECKE, HOLMAN and LUSK, JJ.
The defendant James Fred Walker was convicted of the crime of burglary not in a dwelling house and appeals.
The facts, in general, are that Miller and Walter Rayborn, brothers, were potato growers in Umatilla County and maintained a potato cellar near Weston, Oregon, where potatoes were stored. The brothers had counted the sacks of potatoes in the cellar on January 28, 1965. On January 30 they counted the sacks and noted that 71 one hundred pound sacks of potatoes were missing. The potatoes were traced to the defendant and he testified he purchased them from a man who called himself Raymond Campbell, who could not be located.
There was no evidence of how entry was made into the potato cellar. There were no openings of sufficient size in the cellar, except swinging front doors which were closed and locked, and there was no evidence that the lock had been picked.
The defendant contends reversible error was committed because the state and the prosecuting witness refused to furnish him with the names and addresses of itinerant workers who had been working for the brothers during the two years prior to the burglary.
After the defendant's arrest, and prior to the trial, the defendant with his attorney called upon Mr. Miller Rayborn and requested the names of the workers. According to the record the following occurred:
'Q You recall we asked you for the names of the employees who had worked there picking up potatoes?
'A Yes, sir.
'Q Do you recall that you refused to give us those names?
'A I didn't give them to you, no.
'Q You recall that you telephoned the District Attorney and asked him if you could?
'A Yes, I did. You asked me to. You said you had already talked to him.
'Q And did you follow his advice--(Interrupted)
'A Yes, sir.
'Q--in refusing to give us those names?
'A He said I may do as I please about it, but I didn't have to answer any questions outside of here.
'Q You didn't give us these names?
'A No.
'Q You refused?
A I told you I would give them to you here, if you wanted, but I wasn't going to give them to you out there.'
Subsequently, and prior to trial, the defendant made a written demand upon the state for inspection and copying of a list of these persons prior to trial. This demand was refused as not a proper demand.
However, prior to the making of the written demand upon the state, the defendant filed in the trial court a motion in part as follows:
'The defendant further demands of the District Attorney for Umatilla County, Oregon, that the prosecution give to the defendant a list of the employees who had been employed by the said Miller Rayborn who was alleged to have been the owner of the potato cellar referred to in the indictment, which persons were employed by the said Miller Rayborn during the two years preceding the alleged burglary.
'The defendant also demands of the District Attorney for Umatilla County, Oregon, that the addresses of said persons who were employed by the said Miller Rayborn be given to the defendant.
'In presenting these demands, the defendant relies upon the following facts and propositions:
Subsequently, and before the matter could be heard by the trial court, the defendant moved to withdraw this motion, which was granted.
To justify defendant's position, he relies upon the federal cases, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, and Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103. These cases do not deal with the question here presented. Jencks deals with the right to inspect documents in the government's possession. Brady deals with the suppression of evidence known to the government to be favorable to the defendant. Here there is nothing to indicate in the slightest that those who had previously worked for the complaining witness knew anything that would be material or relevant in the trial of this case.
Also, in this case it should be noted that the defendant was granted a preliminary hearing. If the names and addresses of those who worked for the Rayborns was thought by the defendant to be important this information could have been obtained at that time.
While it is as much the duty of the state to prevent the conviction of the innocent as it is to successfully prosecute the guilty, and the giving of the names would have shown a more cooperative spirit in carrying out the purpose of criminal prosecutions, no error was committed.
It should also be noted that the defendant did not press his demands at the trial. It appears to us that had he believed the names were material he would have insisted upon their production at the trial, and then, if it were made to appear they were material, requested a continuance.
The defendant also made the same demand with respect to the lock on the door. The lock was introduced into evidence, and the testimony of both the state and defendant's witness being to the same effect, the defendant was in nowise prejudiced.
The defendant also assigns as error the failure of the trial court to direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty.
The defendant argues that since the state was unable to prove how the building was entered there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nefstad
...was a comment on the evidence of this case; the trial court correctly refused to give it. ORCP 59 E; ORS 136.330(1); State v. Walker, 244 Or. 404, 411, 417 P.2d 1004 (1966).12 Carpenter has been a criminalist with the Oregon State Police Crime Laboratory since 1977. She analyzes physical ev......
-
State v. Wright
...or reason that moves the will and induces action, an inducement which leads to or tempts the mind to commit an act.’ State v. Walker , 244 Or. 404, 412, 417 P.2d 1004 (1966) (citations omitted). Motive is a relevant circumstantial fact that refers to why a defendant did what he did; it gene......
-
State v. Hampton
...given only such weight as the jury deems proper. State v. Rose, supra, 311 Or. at 283 n. 7, 810 P.2d 839 (citing State v. Walker, 244 Or. 404, 411-12, 417 P.2d 1004 (1966)). There was sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial judge's finding that evidence of defendant's parole ......
-
State v. Rose
...surrounding the commission of the crime and to be given only such weight as the trier of fact deems proper. State v. Walker, 244 Or. 404, 411-12, 417 P.2d 1004 (1966).8 State v. Gibson, 252 Or. 241, 244-46, 448 P.2d 534 (1968); State v. Weston, 102 Or. 102, 129-30, 201 P. 1083 (1921); State......