Case Title: State of Oregon v. Holland

Citation: 202 Or. 656, 277 P.2d 386

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1954-12-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Affirmed December 8, 1954.
*657 Roy Kilpatrick, of Canyon City, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Rob't. D. Lytle and W.F. Schroeder, of Vale.
Clifford B. Olsen, Deputy District Attorney for Grant County, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Michael S. Mogan, District Attorney for Grant County.
*658 Before WARNER, Acting Chief Justice, and LUSK, BRAND and PERRY, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
BRAND, J.
The defendant was charged with the crime of murder in the second degree. He entered a plea of not guilty, was tried by a jury, and found "guilty * * * as charged in the indictment." He was sentenced, and now appeals. The indictment reads as follows:
The first assignment of error reads as follows:
Defendant contends that the 1953 legislature, by enacting Oregon Revised Statutes without a saving clause, granted a legislative pardon to the defendant. On 31 October 1953, the date of the alleged crime, the following statute was in full force and effect:
The statute remained in effect at the time of arraignment and plea of not guilty, but on 31 December 1953 the Oregon Revised Statutes went into effect pursuant to the provisions of Oregon Laws 1953, ch 3. The defendant was tried on 4 January 1954.
The crime of murder in the second degree, so far as relevant here, is defined in Oregon Revised Statutes as follows:
Comparison of OCLA, § 23-402 with ORS 163.020 discloses that the essential elements of the crime have not been changed.
The duties of the Statute Revision Council were set forth by statute:
In defining second degree murder the revisors clearly complied with the direction that they should not "alter the sense, meaning or effect" of the previous statute on the subject.
Defendant relies upon the provisions of Oregon Laws, Chapter 3, now ORS 174.520 to and including 174-560, as granting to defendant a "legislative pardon." We quote the relevant portions:
1. It is clear, as contended by the defendant, that Oregon Revised Statutes were adopted as laws, and not merely as evidence of the law. See 1 ORS, Preface, pp V and VI.
2. The fact, however, that ORS was enacted as law, and that the previous statutes were repealed, is not decisive of the case. The pronouncement of the Massachusetts Supreme Court is applicable here:
And see State v. Rogers, 122 NJL 490, 6 A2d 207, 126 NJL 428, 19 A2d 886.
Counsel cites State v. Ju Nun, 53 Or 1, 97 P 96, 98 P 513, to the following effect:
That case bears no resemblance to the one at bar. Defendant had been tried on an information and convicted. While the case was pending on appeal, the constitution was amended (June 1908) so as to provide that "no person shall be charged in any circuit court * * * except upon indictment * * *." It was held that the amendment was prospective only and the conviction was affirmed.
The portion quoted by appellant correctly states the law as to ordinary repeals of statutes previously enacted. It does not purport to state the effect of a law which repeals and simultaneously reenacts a statutory provision. The rule in the latter case is stated in American Jurisprudence:
Thus it is immaterial whether a single statute is repealed and simultaneously reenacted or whether many statutes are repealed and simultaneously reenacted in a general statutory revision.
Referring to Sutherland on Statutory Construction, we find that the author discusses the effect of the enactment of a "code". We quote:
As thus qualified, it is apparent that the author refers to the type of code which is technically a revision. In the same section we find the following statement:
*664 See also United Hebrew Association v. Benshimol, 130 Mass 325; State v. Prouty, 115 Iowa 657, 84 NW 670; State v. Rogers, 122 NJL 490, 6 A2d 207; State v. Reynolds, 59 SD 53, 238 NW 142; Hancock v. District Township of Perry, 78 Iowa 550, 43 NW 527; Commissioner of Public Works v. Cities Service Oil Co., supra, 308 Mass 349, 32 NE2d 277.
3. The defendant seeks to avoid the force of the above rule by arguing that "we are dealing here not with a re-enactment, but with an enactment * * *." Of course Oregon Revised Statutes are enactments, but they also constitute a repeal and simultaneous re-enactment of the previous statutes insofar as the revision makes no change in the meaning of the earlier statutes, even though changes in phraseology may be found.
It would require strong evidence to induce any court to assume that by enacting the revised statutes it was the legislative intent to permit all persons who committed crimes before December 31, 1953 to go unpunished because they were not tried until the fourth day of January, 1954, or thereafter. In our opinion the legislature clearly expressed the intention, in harmony with the general rule, when it provided that the revised statutes shall be considered as "substituted in a continuing way" for the provisions of the prior statute laws repealed. (Italics ours.) This was a saving clause.
*665 Finally, while we deem it unnecessary, reference is made to OCLA, § 23-105, which was in effect at the time of the commission of the offense, and which was reenacted by ORS 161.040. While the phraseology of the earlier section has been changed and simplified, the meaning remains the same. In its revised form, the statute reads:
4. In Ibach v. Jackson, 148 Or 92, 35 P 672, this court held that the provisions of OCLA, § 23-105 had the same effect as a saving clause in the repealing act. Our conclusion is that the legislature did not grant a legislative pardon to the defendant and the trial court was vested with jurisdiction to try the case.
The next assignment of error challenges the sufficiency of the indictment. The defendant entered his plea of not guilty on 21 November 1953. It was only after the jury had been impaneled and sworn on 4 January 1954, and after the prosecution had made an opening statement, that the defendant objected to the introduction of any evidence, as follows:
There are two statutory grounds, among others, on which the defendant might have demurred to the indictment, (1) that "It does not substantially conform to the requirements of ORS 132.510 to 132.570, 132.590, 132.610 to 132.690, 132.710 and 132.720;" ORS 135.630 (2); and (2) that "The facts stated do not constitute a crime; * * *." ORS 135.630 (4). These provisions reenact those of OCLA, § 26-832. The sections of ORS supra, stating the requirements of indictments, are substantial reenactments of the code provisions in OCLA, Title 26, ch 7, upon the same subject. We shall refer to the relevant sections by their respective section numbers in ORS.
5. It is obvious that an indictment may fail to comply with at least some of the requirements specified in ORS 135.630 (2) and yet not be demurrable on the ground stated in ORS 135.630 (4)  (failure of facts stated to constitute a crime.) If every failure to comply with all of the provisions of law specified in ORS 135.630 (2) made an indictment demurrable under ORS 135.630 (4), there would have been no occasion to provide for any demurrer except on the basis of the latter subsection.
Under the provisions of ORS 135.610-620, a demurrer must be in writing and should be filed at the time of arraignment, unless further time is allowed by the court. The reason is plain. Errors which may *667 be curable should not be ignored until jeopardy has attached, and then be insisted upon as a bar. In State v. Smith, 182 Or 497, 188 P2d 998, this court said:
6. Under the uniform ruling of this court the defendant by failing to demur under the provisions of ORS 135.630 (2) waived all objections concerning the sufficiency of the indictment as to definiteness and certainty.
7. Defendant calls attention to the fact that the appendix to OCLA, Title 26, chapter 7, which sets forth *668 approved forms for criminal indictments, was repealed by Laws of 1951, chapter 391, and argues, at least by implication, that all of the archaic rules of the common law on the subject were thereby reinstated. Such was not the effect of the 1951 act. The repeal of the statutory forms carries with it no implication that such forms are now insufficient when used in an indictment if they comply with constitutional and statutory requirements.
In State v. Smith, supra, we said:
The fact that, since 1864, the approved forms have been used and held good, necessarily implies that the constitutional requirements of a criminal charge were met. Indictments similar to those in the repealed appendix have been upheld in many cases. State v. Dodson, 4 Or 64; State of Oregon v. Spencer, 6 Or 152; State of Oregon v. Brown, 7 Or 186; State v. Ah Lee, 18 Or 540, 23 P 424; State v. McAllister, 67 Or 480, 136 P 354; State v. Hosmer, 72 Or 57, 142 P 814; State v. Morris, 83 Or 429, 163 P 567; State v. Weston, 102 Or 102, 201 P 1083; State v. Wilson, 172 Or 373, 142 P2d 680.
Although the appendix containing authorized forms has been repealed, ORS 132.510 has not been repealed. It has been in the books since 1864, and provides that
*669 Thus the common law rules for criminal pleading do not apply, and the statutes control. The essential requirement of an indictment, if it is to withstand a challenge on the ground that the facts stated do not constitute a crime, is set forth in ORS 132.520 (2). It must contain:
The indictment in question sets forth the acts constituting the crime charged, in the words of the statute, omitting only the portions of the statute not relevant to the particular charge. We have repeatedly held that an indictment is sufficient when it alleges the acts constituting the crime charged in the words of the statute defining the crime. State v. Bailey, 115 Or 428, 236 P 1053; State v. Christiansen, 150 Or 11, 41 P2d 442.
8, 9. The indictment herein specifies the name of the court; the names of the parties. It contains a statement of the acts constituting the offense, in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended. It complies with the requirements of ORS 132.520 to and including 132.550, and is therefore sufficient. This court cannot return to the archaic and technical requirements of the common law as to pleading of criminal cases. State v. King, 165 Or 26, 103 P2d 751. Contrary to the contention of defendant, the indictment states the material facts which are not mere conclusions. It was unnecessary to allege that the act was feloniously done. State of Oregon v. Abrams, 11 Or 169, 8 P 327, State v. Ede, *670 167 Or 640, 117 P2d 235; State v. Christiansen, supra. The statement that the defendant purposely and maliciously killed the victim by cutting him with a knife, establishes that the act was a felony. The other contentions are frivolous. State v. Casey, 108 Or 386, 213 P 771, 217 P 632; State v. Kelley, 118 Or 397, 247 P 146; State v. King, 165 Or 26, 103 P2d 751; ORS 132.610.
The conviction is affirmed.