State v. Gibbons

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Gibbons

462 P.2d 680, 1 Or. App. 374, 1969 Ore. App. LEXIS 155

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 24, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 462 P.2d 680 (State v. Gibbons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Gibbons, 462 P.2d 680, 1 Or. App. 374, 1969 Ore. App. LEXIS 155 (Or. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

*375 BRAN CHFIELD, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction for the crime of robbery while not armed with a dangerous weapon.

In appealing, the defendant submits two assignments of error: First, that the circuit court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a directed judgment of acquittal; and second, that the court erred in giving the jury an instruction on flight when no evidence of flight was presented.

There was sufficient evidence to create a jury question as to defendant’s participation in the robbery; however, it was error for the court to have given the instruction on flight. There was no evidence of flight sufficient to justify such an instruction. State v. Bonner, 241 Or 404, 406 P2d 160 (1965). The remainder of the evidence presented a close question concerning defendant’s complicity in the crime. We cannot say that the error was harmless in this case.

There is one additional subject which requires comment. Defendant’s trial counsel was formerly District Attorney. He signed defendant’s indictment, and appeared in court for the state in two preliminary matters in this case. He then, after returning to private practice, undertook the defense of this case. We assume that full disclosure was made by counsel to both the state and the defendant and each consented to the representation. The case was vigorously defended, and no apparent prejudice resulted. However, this is not a sound practice. We cannot conceive of any circumstance in which a repetition would not be ground for reversal of a conviction.

Defendant’s conviction is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*375 BRAN CHFIELD, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction for the crime of robbery while not armed with a dangerous weapon.

In appealing, the defendant submits two assignments of error: First, that the circuit court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a directed judgment of acquittal; and second, that the court erred in giving the jury an instruction on flight when no evidence of flight was presented.

There was sufficient evidence to create a jury question as to defendant’s participation in the robbery; however, it was error for the court to have given the instruction on flight. There was no evidence of flight sufficient to justify such an instruction. State v. Bonner, 241 Or 404, 406 P2d 160 (1965). The remainder of the evidence presented a close question concerning defendant’s complicity in the crime. We cannot say that the error was harmless in this case.

There is one additional subject which requires comment. Defendant’s trial counsel was formerly District Attorney. He signed defendant’s indictment, and appeared in court for the state in two preliminary matters in this case. He then, after returning to private practice, undertook the defense of this case. We assume that full disclosure was made by counsel to both the state and the defendant and each consented to the representation. The case was vigorously defended, and no apparent prejudice resulted. However, this is not a sound practice. We cannot conceive of any circumstance in which a repetition would not be ground for reversal of a conviction.

Defendant’s conviction is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 P.2d 680, 1 Or. App. 374, 1969 Ore. App. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gibbons-orctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack