Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Oregon v. Byles

April 2, 1973

STATE OF OREGON, APPELLANT,
v.
SHIRLEY DIANE BYLES, RESPONDENT



Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County. Robert E. Jones, Judge. No. C-72-07-2206 Cr.

John W. Osburn, Solicitor General, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Lee Johnson, Attorney General, Salem.

Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Langtry, Judge. Schwab, Chief Judge, and Foley, Judge.

Langtry

This is an appeal by the state from an order

sustaining a demurrer to an indictment which reads in pertinent part as follows:

"The said defendant, on or between the dates of January 12 and January 14, 1972, in the County of Multnomah, State of Oregon, did unlawfully and knowingly commit theft of money of the United States of America in an aggregate transaction, of the total value of more than Two Hundred Dollars, the property of the Great Western National Bank, Portland, Oregon, in that said defendant did on or about January 12, 1972, cash a check for $100 at a branch of said bank; and did on or about January 14, 1972, cash a check for $140 at a branch of said bank, said defendant well knowing that each of said checks was false and valueless, the said checks being in words and figures as follows:

"[The checks are then fully set out.]"*fn1

The demurrer was sustained on one ground only: "* * * for failure to allege the requisite criminal intent."

In State v. Jim/White, 13 Or App 201, 508 P2d 462, Sup Ct review denied (1973), we have considered at length the theft statutes enacted by the 1971 Oregon Legislature. In that case we have held that the word "theft" used in the larceny statutes is a word of art, that it is defined in the statutes to include the meaning of the criminal intent requisite in larceny, and that in

that circumstance the definitions of the statute need not be included in the indictment. Such use of the term "theft" tells the accused of the "* * * nature and cause of the accusation against him * * *" from the standpoint of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.