State v. Malone

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Malone

824 P.2d 430, 111 Or. App. 112, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 236

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 22, 1992

DocketC89-09-34962; CA A63943

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 824 P.2d 430 (State v. Malone) 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. Malone, 824 P.2d 430, 111 Or. App. 112, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 236 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of compelling prostitution, ORS 167.017, and promoting prostitution. ORS 167.012. He argues that the trial court erred in not merging the convictions. He seeks vacation of his conviction for promoting prostitution.

Offenses do not merge if proof of each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not. ORS 161.067. ORS 167.012(1)(c) — defining the crime of promoting prostitution — requires proof that the defendant received or agreed to receive money or other property derived from prostitution, which is not an element of the crime of compelling prostitution. ORS 167.017(1)(b) — defining the crime of compelling prostitution — requires proof that the defendant’s victim was under the age of 18. That is not an element of promoting prostitution.

Defendant committed crimes requiring proof of different statutory elements. The trial court properly declined to merge the convictions. See State v. Wallock/Hara, 110 Or App 109, 821 P2d 435 (1991).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of compelling prostitution, ORS 167.017, and promoting prostitution. ORS 167.012. He argues that the trial court erred in not merging the convictions. He seeks vacation of his conviction for promoting prostitution.

Offenses do not merge if proof of each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not. ORS 161.067. ORS 167.012(1)(c) — defining the crime of promoting prostitution — requires proof that the defendant received or agreed to receive money or other property derived from prostitution, which is not an element of the crime of compelling prostitution. ORS 167.017(1)(b) — defining the crime of compelling prostitution — requires proof that the defendant’s victim was under the age of 18. That is not an element of promoting prostitution.

Defendant committed crimes requiring proof of different statutory elements. The trial court properly declined to merge the convictions. See State v. Wallock/Hara, 110 Or App 109, 821 P2d 435 (1991).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

824 P.2d 430, 111 Or. App. 112, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-malone-orctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack