Case Title: State of Oregon v. Brantley

Citation: 201 Or. 637, 271 P.2d 668

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1954-06-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Affirmed June 17, 1954.
*638 Walter D. Nunley, District Attorney, Jackson County, of Medford, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was J.V. McGoodwin, Deputy District Attorney, of Medford.
Edward C. Kelly, of Medford, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Before LATOURETTE, Chief Justice, and WARNER, ROSSMAN and PERRY, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
*639 PERRY, J.
The grand jury of Jackson county, Oregon, indicted the defendant Gene R. Brantley, the charging part of the indictment reading as follows:
The defendant challenged the indictment by demurrer on the following grounds:
The trial court sustained the demurrer of the defendant and the State has appealed.
The State earnestly contends that the facts set forth in the indictment do constitute the crime of uttering a forged instrument, the basis of their argument being that § 23-560, OCLA, which reads as follows:
includes within the definition of the words of the statute, "public record", a certificate of nomination for the candidacy of a person seeking public office as provided in § 81.1007, OCLA, as amended, now ORS 249.770, and, therefore, being an instrument subject to forgery, the offering of the certificate of nomination, purportedly signed by the individual electors, but being in fact not the signatures of the electors, constituted the uttering of a forged instrument within the terms of the statute.
Also, the State earnestly contends that the portion of the above statute relative to uttering a forged instrument which reads as follows: "Or shall, with *644 such intent, knowingly utter or publish as true or genuine any such false, altered, forged or counterfeited record, writing, instrument, or matter whatever, * * *", [italics ours] includes within the term "or matter whatever" any forged instrument, regardless of whether or not the instrument uttered is included in the specific matters or things subject to forgery in the body of the statute.
1, 2. We cannot adopt this latter contention of the State, however, for the reason that the words "matter whatever" standing alone and not in conjunction with the specific matters made subject to the crime of forgery in the statute are so indefinite in their scope that it would be impossible to determine what acts of false and fraudulent uttering were intended by the legislative body to be lawful and what were intended to be criminal, making this portion of the statute void for indefiniteness. "A valid criminal law must definitely show with reasonable certainty what acts or omissions the law-making body intended to prohibit and punish: 1 Cyclopedia of Criminal Law, Brill, § 62. But reasonable definiteness in view of the conditions is all that is required: State v. Lawrence, 9 Okl. Cr. 16 (130 Pac. 508); State v. Schaeffer, 96 Ohio St. 215 (117 N.E. 220, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 1137, L.R.A. 1918B, 945) * * *". State v. Bailey, 115 Or 428, 432, 236 P 1053.
3-6. While the rule of the common law, that penal statutes are to be strictly construed, has no application in this state, and all its provisions are to be construed according to the fair import of their terms with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice (§ 23-106, OCLA, now ORS 161.050), this statute does not permit an enlargement of a statute by construction, *645 Kirk v. Farmers' Grain Agency, 103 Or 43, 202 P 731; and the danger of enlarging a statute by judicial construction is pointed out forcibly by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in the case of United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 96, 5 LE 37, where he said:
In this matter, therefore, to avoid invalidating and to give force to the words of this statute relative to the uttering and publishing of a false and fraudulent matter or thing, we are constrained to apply the rule of statutory construction ejusdem generis "where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, the general words will be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated. The rule is based on the obvious reason that if the legislature had intended the general words to be used in their unrestricted sense they would have made no mention of the particular classes. It has been held especially applicable to penal or criminal statutes, and statutes which partake of the nature of criminal process". 82 CJS 658, Statutes, § 332 b. In this connection it is to be noted that the legislature in adopting the revised statutes of this state in 1953 in setting forth *646 § 23-560, OCLA, set forth in ORS 165.105 the matters and things subject to forgery, and in ORS 165.115, relative to the crime of uttering forged instruments, provided that the false or forged instrument to be uttered was the "record, writing, instrument or other matter specified in ORS 165.105".
Since, as we have pointed out, the crime of uttering and publishing a false and fraudulent record, writing, instrument or other matter must be one that is made subject to forgery by the statute, we must now consider whether or not a certificate of nomination for the candidacy of a person seeking public office before the same has been filed with the county clerk is a public record within the meaning of the criminal statute.
7. "A `public record', strictly speaking, is one made by a public officer in pursuance of a duty, the immediate purpose of which is to disseminate information to the public, or to serve as a memorial of official transactions for public reference". State v. Grace, 43 Wyo 454, 5 P2d 301, 303; and to the same effect see also Robison v. Fishback, 175 Ind 132, 93 NE 666, People v. Purcell, 22 Cal App 2d 126, 70 P2d 706.
Black's Law Dictionary 3rd Edition, page 1506, defines "public record" as follows:
8. However, apart from general definitions of a "public record", ORS 249.820 definitely sets forth *647 when a certificate of nomination becomes a public record. This statute reads as follows:
The statute itself determines that until such time as the certificate of nomination has passed from the hands of the person in possession thereof to the county clerk, the public in general has no interest therein. Therefore, the forgery of a certificate of nomination must be the forgery of that document after it has become such a public record by being filed, and not before.
The indictment in this case as hereinbefore set out does not charge the uttering of a forged public record, but charges the uttering of a forged private record. Since the indictment fails to charge a crime, it is unnecessary for us to consider the other matters raised by the demurrer.
The decree of the circuit court sustaining the demurrer to the indictment is affirmed.