Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RUTH BARNETT, Appellant
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1967-11-29
Citations: 248 Or. 614
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RUTH BARNETT, Appellant.
Judges: Before Perry, Chief Justice, and McAllister, Sloan, O’Connell, Goodwin, Holman and Lusk, Justices.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 248
Pages: 614–616

Head Matter:
Argued September 8,
affirmed November 29, 1967,
petition for rehearing denied January 16, motion for stay of judgment and recall of mandate denied January 23,1968
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RUTH BARNETT, Appellant.
433 P. 2d 1018
Leo Levenson, Portland, argued the cause .for appellant. ' With him on the brief was Howard E. Lonergan, Portland. ' • • ...
Jacob Tanzer, Deputy District Attorney, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. • With him oh the brief was George Van Hoomissen, District Attorney, Portland.
Before Perry, Chief Justice, and McAllister, Sloan, O’Connell, Goodwin, Holman and Lusk, Justices.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Euth Barnett was convicted of manslaughter by abortion, and appeals.
Defendant claims error in the refusal of the trial court to sustain her demurrer to the indictment. She demurred upon the ground that she could not receive a fair trial. Her assignment of error states she could not receive a fair trial because Article I, §6, of the Oregon Constitution prohibits inquiry into the religious beliefs of prospective jurors; that she is charged with committing an unlawful abortion and that certain religious organizations do not believe that any abortions can be lawful and, therefore, all persons of these faiths cannot be fair and impartial jurors.
A demurrer to an indictment does not raise this issue. The grounds for demurrer to an indictment are purely statutory. OES 135.630. The belief that a party cannot receive a fair and impartial trial is not found in this statute.
Defendant also assigns as error the trial court's refusal to give certain requested instructions. An examination of the instructions discloses that the trial court not only properly instructed the jury upon the subject of the requested instructions, but that the instructions requested were erroneous.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.