Case Title: State v. Gratz

Citation: 461 P.2d 829

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1969-11-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
461 P.2d 829 (1969)
STATE of Oregon, Appellant,
v.
Victor Thomas GRATZ, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.
Submitted May 6, 1969.
Decided November 26, 1969.
Donald H. Turner, Dist. Atty., The Dalles, for appellant.
Lewis & Remington, The Dalles, for respondent.
PERRY, Chief Justice.
The defendant Victor Thomas Gratz was charged in two separate counts in a single indictment with armed robbery of the persons of Catherine Helzer in Count 1 and Georgie Drinkard in Count 2. Both crimes are alleged as arising out of the same transaction.
The defendant demurred to the indictment and the demurrer was sustained by the trial court. The state appeals.
The trial court apparently sustained the demurrer upon the theory that the armed robbery of two persons at the same time and place constituted the commission of but a single crime. The charging part of the indictment is as follows:
The defendant relies upon State v. Clark, 46 Or. 140, 80 P. 101, wherein this court held that the stealing of several articles belonging to more than one person at the same time and place by one act constitutes but a single offense. This holding is in accord with the weight of authority and is based on the reasoning that, since there was but one overt act (the theft), a rule to the contrary would lead to incongruous and inhumane results. Anno. 28 A.L.R.2d 1187, § 3.
However, in the cases dealing with armed robbery, where the gravamen of the offense is an assault upon and a theft from the person, ORS 163.280, the courts hold that each assault and theft from a different person, although occurring at the same time and place, is a separate crime. People v. Kelly, 168 Cal. App. 2d 387, 335 P.2d 955; People v. Lagomarsino, 97 Cal. App. 2d 92, 217 P.2d 124; Keeton v. Commonwealth, 92 Ky. 522, 18 S.W. 359, 13 Ky.L. 748; Novak v. State, 139 Md. 538, 115 A. 853; Johns v. State, 130 Miss. 803, 95 So. 84, 85; State v. Williams (Mo.), 263 S.W. 195; State v. Hoag, 21 N.J. 496, 122 A.2d 628, affirmed 78 S. Ct. 829, 356 U.S. 464, 2 L. Ed. 2d 913, rehearing denied 78 S. Ct. 1366, 357 U.S. 933, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1375; Worbetz v. Goodman, 47 N.J. Super. 391, 136 A.2d 1; People v. Rodgers, 184 App.Div. 461, 171 N.Y.S. 451, affirmed 226 N.Y. 671, 123 N.E. 882; Orcutt v. State, 52 Okl.Cr. 217, 3 P.2d 912; Thompson v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. 222, 234 S.W. 400, 243 S.W. 848.
With few exceptions, not here pertinent, in crimes against the person when contrasted with crimes against property there are as many offenses as individuals affected. And, while it may be said that in armed robbery a single act may put several persons in fear, yet, in order to consummate the crime, that act must be followed by the act of taking from each person money or personal goods. Thus the taking of money or personal goods from one person does not constitute an integral part of the crime committed against another person. State v. Hoag, supra.
Since ORS 132.560 permits the joinder of separate crimes arising out of the same transaction in a single indictment if set forth in separate counts, the judgment of the trial court must be reversed with instructions to overrule defendant's demurrer.