State v. Duffy
576 P.2d 797, 33 Or. App. 301, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 3320
Opinion
Here the trial court entered an order authorizing civil compromise and dismissed a criminal charge against the defendant. The state appeals, contending —and we hold correctly so — that a criminal charge based upon failure of a driver involved in an accident to leave his name and address is not a charge which can be dismissed on the basis of civil compromise. The civil compromise statute provides:
"When a defendant is charged with a crime punishable as a misdemeanor for which the person injured by the act constituting the crime has a remedy by civil action, the crime may be compromised * * *.” ORS 135.703. (Emphasis supplied.)
Failure to leave name and address, ORS 483.604, is not such an act.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Duffy, 576 P.2d 797, 33 Or. App. 301, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 3320 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
576 P.2d 797 (State v. Duffy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People v. Tischman
35 Cal. App. 4th 174 (California Court of Appeal, 1995)
State v. Dugger
698 P.2d 491 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1985)
State v. Yos
691 P.2d 508 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1984)
State v. Roxbury District Court
629 P.2d 1341 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1981)
Hensel v. State
585 P.2d 878 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1978)