State v. Super

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Super

589 P.2d 741, 38 Or. App. 3, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2247

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 15, 1979

DocketNo. C 77-08-11953, CA 10692

StatusPublished

This text of 589 P.2d 741 (State v. Super) 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. Super, 589 P.2d 741, 38 Or. App. 3, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2247 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

LEE, J.

Defendant was tried by a jury and found guilty of both conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree (conspiracy) and robbery in the first degree (robbery). The defendant did not testify. His two co-conspirators did.¹ The testimony of one was that the defendant conspired to commit the robbery and then participated in it. The testimony of the other was that defendant was not involved. Upon return of the two guilty verdicts, the court entered a judgment, in accordance with ORS 161.485(3),² which stated that "Count I [conspiracy] is hereby merged with Count II [robbery] for purposes of sentencing and conviction.” On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give his requested instruction on conspiracy to commit theft in the second degree.

In State v. Washington, 273 Or 829, 836, 543 P2d 1058 (1975), the court said:

"* * * The single limitation on the right of either the prosecution or the defendant to request lesser included offense instructions under these statutes is that there must be evidence, or an inference which can be drawn from the evidence, which supports the requested instruction so that the jury could rationally and consistently find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense and innocent of the greater. [Footnote omitted] * * *” (Emphasis supplied.)

Under the evidence, the jury could have found defendant guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery or not guilty of any conspiracy. There was no rational basis on which the jury could have found defendant guilty of conspiracy to commit theft rather than robbery. Under these circumstances, the failure to give the requested [6]*6instruction did not and could not have prejudiced defendant.

Affirmed.

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

LEE, J.

Defendant was tried by a jury and found guilty of both conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree (conspiracy) and robbery in the first degree (robbery). The defendant did not testify. His two co-conspirators did.¹ The testimony of one was that the defendant conspired to commit the robbery and then participated in it. The testimony of the other was that defendant was not involved. Upon return of the two guilty verdicts, the court entered a judgment, in accordance with ORS 161.485(3),² which stated that "Count I [conspiracy] is hereby merged with Count II [robbery] for purposes of sentencing and conviction.” On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give his requested instruction on conspiracy to commit theft in the second degree.

In State v. Washington, 273 Or 829, 836, 543 P2d 1058 (1975), the court said:

"* * * The single limitation on the right of either the prosecution or the defendant to request lesser included offense instructions under these statutes is that there must be evidence, or an inference which can be drawn from the evidence, which supports the requested instruction so that the jury could rationally and consistently find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense and innocent of the greater. [Footnote omitted] * * *” (Emphasis supplied.)

Under the evidence, the jury could have found defendant guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery or not guilty of any conspiracy. There was no rational basis on which the jury could have found defendant guilty of conspiracy to commit theft rather than robbery. Under these circumstances, the failure to give the requested [6]*6instruction did not and could not have prejudiced defendant.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

589 P.2d 741, 38 Or. App. 3, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-super-orctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack