Title: State v. Rood

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

234 Or. 196 (1963)
380 P.2d 806
STATE OF OREGON
v.
ROOD

Supreme Court of Oregon.
Submitted February 13, 1963.
Reversed April 24, 1963.
On the brief for appellant were Dale T. Crabtree, Sam A. McKeen, and John R. Thomas, Klamath Falls.
No appearance for respondent.
REVERSED.
ROSSMAN, J.
A complaint filed in the District Court for Klamath County charged the defendant with the crime of selling a lottery ticket. The charge was made under ORS 167.410 which reads:
From a judgment entered in the District Court which found the defendant guilty she appealed to the Circuit Court for Klamath County. The court last mentioned sustained a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that since the complaint did not specify the name of the purported purchaser it did not charge a crime. From the resulting order the state appealed to this court.
The state's (appellant's) sole assignment of error follows: "The trial court erred in sustaining the defendant's demurrer to the complaint."
According to the decision in State v. Light, 17 Or 358, 21 P 132, the indictment charged the defendant with "willfully and unlawfully playing at a certain game called `stud-poker,' a game played with cards, for money, and checks as representatives of money and value." The defendant demurred to the indictment and the demurrer was overruled. Upon his conviction he appealed. We take the following from the decision:
The information in State v. Pearlman, 154 Or 52, 58 P2d 1253, charged the defendant with the crime of unlawfully selling alcoholic liquor, but did not give the name of the purchaser. The pertinent part of the information was the following: "did then and there unlawfully and wilfully sell certain alcoholic liquor." In sustaining the sufficiency of the information, this court said:
In State v. Pulver, 159 Or 296, 79 P2d 990, the complaint against the defendants was filed in a justice court and charged them as follows:
It will be noticed that the complaint did not name the players. After conviction the defendants, upon *199 appeal, claimed that the complaint did not allege facts sufficient to constitute a crime. This court, quoting the governing statute, ruled as follows:
The sufficiency of the complaint was sustained.
In State v. Langley, 214 Or 445, 315 P2d 560, 323 P2d 301, an indictment charged that the defendant, who was the District Attorney for Multnomah County, wilfully neglected to prosecute one William B. Nettleton for gambling although he had good cause to believe that Nettleton had violated the gambling statutes of this state. In sustaining a judgment of guilty that had been entered against the defendant, this court said:
United States v. Sosseur, 87 F Supp 225, recognized as sufficient an indictment which read:
In State v. Hartung, 141 Minn 207, 169 NW 712, the defendant had been convicted of the violation of a statute which rendered it unlawful for any person to advocate that the citizens of Minnesota should not assist the United States in prosecuting any of its wars. The specific charge against the defendant was that in World War I he told Red Cross solicitors, "You are working for the wrong side. Germany is right in this war * * *." The defendant claimed that the indictment was defective in failing to allege the names of the persons to whom he addressed the offensive words. After taking note that the state constitution assured the defendant of his right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him," the court, in sustaining the conviction, declared:
We take the following from People v. Malone, 68 Cal App 615, 229 P 1000:
People v. Gelardi, 77 Cal App 2d 467, 175 P2d 855, ruled as follows:
People v. Faust, 113 Cal 172, 45 P 261, sustained the defendant's conviction upon a charge that he sold intoxicating liquor "to two Indians." It did not give their names. The court stated:
We take the following from 4 Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure, § 1781:
Without further review of the authorities it will be noticed that our precedents announced in cases substantially similar to the present one do not require that the indictment name the individual who, similar to the purchaser of a lottery ticket, participates in the criminal act. It will also be noticed that our precedents are in harmony with the trend of authority.
The sole issue is whether the complaint states a crime. We think that it does. The circuit court erred in sustaining the demurrer. Its challenged ruling is reversed.