State v. Hibbs

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Hibbs

605 P.2d 723, 44 Or. App. 179, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 2204

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 28, 1980

DocketNo. K29886, CA 15306

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 605 P.2d 723 (State v. Hibbs) 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. Hibbs, 605 P.2d 723, 44 Or. App. 179, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 2204 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

TANZER, P. J.

Defendant appeals from her conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants. She assigns as error the denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that the uniform traffic citation alleged the infraction to have occurred on June 5, 1979, whereas the proof was that it occurred on May 5, 1979.

ORS 484.150(3)(c), 484.160(2) and 484.170(2) require that the citation state the date and time of the offense. The date of the offense not being an element of the infraction, it is not a material allegation. By analogy to criminal laws, we infer that the purpose of this pleading requirement is to enable the defendant to defend, to invoke the statute of limitations and to prevent successive adjudication. If a variance between a nonmaterial allegation and the proof does not affect the defense adversely, the variance is deemed non-material. State v. Anderson, 241 Or 18, 403 P2d 778 (1965); State v. Hanson/Hughes, 14 Or App 586, 513 P2d 1202 rev den (1973).

Here, there is no claim of mistake or surprise. Neither is there an alibi defense. No statute of limitations defense is asserted. As defense counsel candidly acknowledges, the mistake is utterly without prejudice to any right or interest of the defense. Therefore, the variance of the proof from the citation was not material and the motion for judgment of acquittal was properly denied.

Affirmed.

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

TANZER, P. J.

Defendant appeals from her conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants. She assigns as error the denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that the uniform traffic citation alleged the infraction to have occurred on June 5, 1979, whereas the proof was that it occurred on May 5, 1979.

ORS 484.150(3)(c), 484.160(2) and 484.170(2) require that the citation state the date and time of the offense. The date of the offense not being an element of the infraction, it is not a material allegation. By analogy to criminal laws, we infer that the purpose of this pleading requirement is to enable the defendant to defend, to invoke the statute of limitations and to prevent successive adjudication. If a variance between a nonmaterial allegation and the proof does not affect the defense adversely, the variance is deemed non-material. State v. Anderson, 241 Or 18, 403 P2d 778 (1965); State v. Hanson/Hughes, 14 Or App 586, 513 P2d 1202 rev den (1973).

Here, there is no claim of mistake or surprise. Neither is there an alibi defense. No statute of limitations defense is asserted. As defense counsel candidly acknowledges, the mistake is utterly without prejudice to any right or interest of the defense. Therefore, the variance of the proof from the citation was not material and the motion for judgment of acquittal was properly denied.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

605 P.2d 723, 44 Or. App. 179, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 2204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hibbs-orctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack