Title: State v. Anderson

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Affirmed June 30, 1965.
*19 Paul A. Thalhofer, Pendleton, argued the cause and filed briefs for the appellant.
Michael S. Killoran, Deputy District Attorney, Pendleton, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief was Richard J. Courson, District Attorney, Pendleton.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, and PERRY, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN, DENECKE and HOLMAN, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
PERRY, J.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm capable of being concealed upon his person and appeals from the judgment.
The defendant states the facts as follows:
The defendant contends that, since the evidence established that he was convicted in the state of Mississippi of attempted burglary and not the completed crime of burglary as alleged in the indictment, there was a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof of the crime.
1. The rule of variance is based upon providing an accused against surprise in making his defense and to prevent him from again being put in jeopardy for the same offense. State v. Hoover, 219 Or 288, 347 P2d 69, 89 ALR2d 695; State v. Cook, 154 Or 62, 59 P2d 249.
2-4. We are unable to discover how the fact that the defendant had entered a plea of guilty to attempted burglary instead of the completed offense, and the proof offered disclosed only the attempt, could have in any manner misled the defendant. An attempt to commit a crime is necessarily included in the completed crime. State v. Harvey, 119 Or 512, 249 P 172. The allegation of a prior conviction of a felony is only an allegation of the status of the defendant and the mere fact that the defendant had been convicted of an attempt instead of the completed offense would *22 have no bearing upon the question of double jeopardy since a conviction of an attempt to commit the crime charged necessarily is an acquittal of the completed offense. State v. Eyle, 236 Or 199, 388 P2d 110.
The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in failing to sustain his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal since there was a failure by the state to prove that the defendant had been convicted of a "felony against the property of another."
The defendant argues that there is no evidence that in the attempted burglary the defendant did in fact commit a felony against the property of another.
5, 6. The law certainly does not require, in a case such as this, that the facts constituting the commission of the prior crime be established to the satisfaction of a jury. The sole question before the jury is whether or not the defendant was previously convicted of the crime of burglary or a lesser included offense. It is a matter of law for the court to determine whether the crime committed constituted a felony against the property of another.
7. It is well established in law, and no citations are necessary to establish, that burglary and attempted burglary are offenses against property, not against persons.
The defendant makes other contentions that error was committed by the trial court. We have carefully examined each of these contentions and find them without merit.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.