Home/Court of Appeals of Oregon/State v. Newton

State v. Newton

463 P.2d 372, 463 P.2d 373, 1 Or. App. 419, 1970 Ore. App. LEXIS 698
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJanuary 8, 1970
DocketC-49950
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 463 P.2d 372 (State v. Newton) 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. Newton, 463 P.2d 372, 463 P.2d 373, 1 Or. App. 419, 1970 Ore. App. LEXIS 698 (Or. Ct. App. 1970).

Opinion

BRANCHFIELD, J.

The defendant is appealing from a conviction for assault and battery by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury.

The defendant raises two assignments of error: That the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal, and in denying his motion for a new trial. They will be treated as a single claim, since they deal with the same basic question. ①

On September 3, 1967, James H. Olson and the defendant were confined in the isolation area of Rocky Butte jail in Multnomah County. That evening, one Russell Keith Gorsuch was placed in the same cell with the defendant and Olson. Gorsuch was severely beaten that night, and the beating continued until the following day, when he was removed from the cell and taken to a doctor.

The defendant’s indictment charged him with the commission of the crime “* * * on or about the 4th day of September, A.D., 1967, * * He now contends that the evidence showed that the beating occurred on September 3,1967, and that the variance "between the date alleged and the date proven was material and prejudicial in view of the existence of *421 another indictment for the same crime, hut which alleged that the heating was inflicted on September 3, 1967.

During the trial, the other indictment against the defendant was ordered dismissed, and he offers no other grounds which would render the exact time of the occurrence material to his defense. Where time is not a material ingredient of the crime, the state is not required to establish that the crime was committed at the precise time alleged in the indictment, and the failure to do so is not prejudicial. State v. Howard, 214 Or 611, 331 P2d 1116 (1958); and State of Oregon v. Lee, 202 Or 592, 276 P2d 946 (1954). There was no error.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

①

The denial of a motion for a new trial is not an appealable order. It is reviewed here only in the course of consideration of the appeal from the judgment.

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

Related

State v. Templeton
538 P.2d 950 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1975)
State v. Aronhalt
526 P.2d 463 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1974)
State v. Smith
525 P.2d 213 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1974)
State v. King
524 P.2d 564 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1974)
State v. Johnson
500 P.2d 500 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1972)
State v. Mitchell
495 P.2d 1245 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1972)
State v. Seay
495 P.2d 39 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1972)
State v. Peyton
493 P.2d 1393 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1972)
State v. Edwards
493 P.2d 180 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1972)
State v. Tucker
483 P.2d 825 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1971)
State v. Carlson
475 P.2d 431 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
463 P.2d 372, 463 P.2d 373, 1 Or. App. 419, 1970 Ore. App. LEXIS 698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-newton-orctapp-1970.