State v. Guerrero

Oregon Supreme Court

State v. Guerrero

415 P.2d 28, 243 Or. 616, 1966 Ore. LEXIS 591

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedJune 3, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 415 P.2d 28 (State v. Guerrero) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Guerrero, 415 P.2d 28, 243 Or. 616, 1966 Ore. LEXIS 591 (Or. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

SLOAN, J.

Defendant was convicted of attempted burglary not in a dwelling. He appeals.

He was apprehended while endeavoring to enter a drug store in Bend. He was searched and a plastic case containing an eye dropper and needles of the kind commonly used by drug addicts was found on his person. These were introduced in evidence at defendant’s trial over his objection. This is the only claim of error in the appeal. Defendant claims that the prejudice to him outweighed the probative value of the evidence.

In State v. Kristich, 1961, 226 Or 240, 359 P2d 1106, we held that evidence which may indicate the commission of a crime other than the one for which a defendant is charged is admissible if it has probative relevance to the case and its prejudice is not out of proportion to its value. See State v. Flett, 234 Or 124, 380 P2d 634 for further exposition of the rule. In the instant case the state claimed that the evidence tended to show a motive for attempting to burglarize a drug store. We agree.

The evidence did not suggest the commission of another crime. But it did degrade defendant as a probable narcotics user. To that extent the evidence was prejudicial. Nevertheless, it also established a compelling motive for defendant to attempt to enter a drug store. Accordingly, the evidence had real probative value and it was proper to have admitted it.

Affirmed.

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

SLOAN, J.

Defendant was convicted of attempted burglary not in a dwelling. He appeals.

He was apprehended while endeavoring to enter a drug store in Bend. He was searched and a plastic case containing an eye dropper and needles of the kind commonly used by drug addicts was found on his person. These were introduced in evidence at defendant’s trial over his objection. This is the only claim of error in the appeal. Defendant claims that the prejudice to him outweighed the probative value of the evidence.

In State v. Kristich, 1961, 226 Or 240, 359 P2d 1106, we held that evidence which may indicate the commission of a crime other than the one for which a defendant is charged is admissible if it has probative relevance to the case and its prejudice is not out of proportion to its value. See State v. Flett, 234 Or 124, 380 P2d 634 for further exposition of the rule. In the instant case the state claimed that the evidence tended to show a motive for attempting to burglarize a drug store. We agree.

The evidence did not suggest the commission of another crime. But it did degrade defendant as a probable narcotics user. To that extent the evidence was prejudicial. Nevertheless, it also established a compelling motive for defendant to attempt to enter a drug store. Accordingly, the evidence had real probative value and it was proper to have admitted it.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

415 P.2d 28, 243 Or. 616, 1966 Ore. LEXIS 591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-guerrero-or-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack