Title: State v. Elkins

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Affirmed October 25, 1967.
Petition for rehearing denied November 28, 1967.
George A. Haslett, Jr., Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Jacob B. Tanzer, Deputy District Attorney, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on *323 the brief was George Van Hoomissen, District Attorney, Portland.
Before PERRY, Chief Justice, and SLOAN, GOODWIN, HOLMAN and WOODRICH, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
WOODRICH, J. (Pro Tempore).
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction on a charge of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Defendant was first convicted in district court. On appeal to the circuit court he was again convicted. Defendant contends he was denied a fair trial by reason of adverse publicity occurring during trial.
On the morning of June 21, 1966, the second day of trial, after the jury had been impaneled, defendant moved for a mistrial on the ground that an article appeared in the morning edition of the June 21, 1966, Oregonian, reciting defendant's earlier conviction and sentence in district court on the same charge. The article made references to some of the facts alleged in the first trial, summarized the proceedings of the first day of the second trial, and characterized the defendant as "a prominent figure in the Portland vice trials in the late 1950's." After some colloquy between the court and defense counsel, the following transpired:
During the afternoon session defendant again moved for a mistrial based on an article, substantially *326 the same as that above, which appeared in the Oregon Journal. The court ruled:
The morning of the third day of trial, defendant again moved for a mistrial based on an article appearing in The Oregonian that morning. The article was similar to the previous two, except its contents were limited to the alleged facts of the charge in this case and the proceedings in the district and circuit court. The trial judge denied this motion for the same reasons given in his previous rulings.
1, 2. The only assignment of error asserted by defendant is the trial court's denial of his several motions for mistrial based on publicity during trial. "* * * [A] motion for a mistrial is addressed to the discretion of the trial court * * * only when it can be said that the trial court abused its discretion will this court reverse * * *." State v. Hoffman, 236 Or 98, 108, 385 P2d 741 (1963). There is no claim or showing that any juror was false in his answers to the court's inquiry at the time of defendant's first motion for a mistrial. The trial court and this court must presume that the answers of each juror were honest. State v. McDonald, 231 Or 24, 37, 361 P2d 1001 (1962). Based on these answers the trial court very properly denied defendant's first motion for mistrial.
*327 3. The quoted instruction following the court's inquiry of the jury carefully admonished the jury to refrain from obtaining any outside information about the case from any source whatsoever. The jury is under oath to follow the law given them at the trial. It is presumed that the jury followed the court's instruction and honored their oath. ORS 41.360(15)(33); Sedillo v. City of Portland, 234 Or 28, 33, 380 P2d 115 (1963); State v. Reed, 52 Or 377, 97 P 627 (1908). The trial court had a right to rely on this presumption and it was certainly no abuse of discretion so to do.
The defendant urges that the rule of Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 US 333, 86 S Ct 1507, 16 L Ed2d 600 (1966), is controlling in the instant case. Contrary to the facts in Sheppard, the trial judge very carefully protected the rights of the defendant from adverse publicity.
Affirmed.