State v. Tron

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Tron

592 P.2d 1094, 39 Or. App. 603, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2180

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 2, 1979

Docket78-106C, CA 12002

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 592 P.2d 1094 (State v. Tron) 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. Tron, 592 P.2d 1094, 39 Or. App. 603, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2180 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

*605 ROBERTS, J.

The state appeals from the trial court’s granting of a defense motion dismissing charges against the defendant. Defendant was charged by information with escape in the first degree (ORS 162.165), assault in the second degree (ORS 163.175), and assault in the fourth degree (ORS 163.160). The trial court allowed a defense motion requiring the state to elect between the assault and escape charges. Contending it was not required to make the election, the state refused to proceed to trial and the charges were dismissed. We reverse and remand.

We have previously examined the issue before us in State v. Girard, 34 Or App 85, 578 P2d 415 (1978) and State v. Fitzgerald, 14 Or App 361, 513 P2d 817 (1973). The defendant in Girard was convicted of both escape and assault and contended that the state should have been required to elect between the two crimes in making its charge. Although we stated in Girard that we had previously held in Fitzgerald that a person could not be chargedwith. both attempted first degree escape and first degree assault, this language was dictum since both cases actually hold that a person cannot be convicted and sentenced for both offenses.

Separate convictions for both crimes are prohibited because "the interest protected by the use-of-force element of escape and the assault statutes is exactly the same.” State v. Girard, supra, 34 Or App at 94. The defendant argues that this prohibition means that the prosecution must elect between the charges before the case goes to the jury for decision. However, such a forced election is not necessary in order to uphold the prohibition against separate convictions. In fact, we stated in Fitzgerald that the prosecution could make the escape and assault charges as alternative counts in the same instrument as was done here. 14 Or App at 376. The time to deal with merger, if at all, is after the verdict.

Reversed and remanded.

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

*605 ROBERTS, J.

The state appeals from the trial court’s granting of a defense motion dismissing charges against the defendant. Defendant was charged by information with escape in the first degree (ORS 162.165), assault in the second degree (ORS 163.175), and assault in the fourth degree (ORS 163.160). The trial court allowed a defense motion requiring the state to elect between the assault and escape charges. Contending it was not required to make the election, the state refused to proceed to trial and the charges were dismissed. We reverse and remand.

We have previously examined the issue before us in State v. Girard, 34 Or App 85, 578 P2d 415 (1978) and State v. Fitzgerald, 14 Or App 361, 513 P2d 817 (1973). The defendant in Girard was convicted of both escape and assault and contended that the state should have been required to elect between the two crimes in making its charge. Although we stated in Girard that we had previously held in Fitzgerald that a person could not be chargedwith. both attempted first degree escape and first degree assault, this language was dictum since both cases actually hold that a person cannot be convicted and sentenced for both offenses.

Separate convictions for both crimes are prohibited because "the interest protected by the use-of-force element of escape and the assault statutes is exactly the same.” State v. Girard, supra, 34 Or App at 94. The defendant argues that this prohibition means that the prosecution must elect between the charges before the case goes to the jury for decision. However, such a forced election is not necessary in order to uphold the prohibition against separate convictions. In fact, we stated in Fitzgerald that the prosecution could make the escape and assault charges as alternative counts in the same instrument as was done here. 14 Or App at 376. The time to deal with merger, if at all, is after the verdict.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 P.2d 1094, 39 Or. App. 603, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tron-orctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack