Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LOUIS GIBBONS, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1969-12-24
Citations: 1 Or. App. 374
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LOUIS GIBBONS, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 1
Pages: 374–375

Head Matter:
Argued October 30,
reversed and remanded December 24, 1969
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LOUIS GIBBONS, Appellant.
462 P. 2d 680
Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender; Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
James A. Sanderson, Deputy District Attorney, Klamath Falls, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Donald B. Crane, District Attorney, Klamath Falls.

Opinion:
BRAN CHFIELD, J.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction for the crime of robbery while not armed with a dangerous weapon.
In appealing, the defendant submits two assignments of error: First, that the circuit court erred in denying defendant's motion for a directed judgment of acquittal; and second, that the court erred in giving the jury an instruction on flight when no evidence of flight was presented.
There was sufficient evidence to create a jury question as to defendant's participation in the robbery; however, it was error for the court to have given the instruction on flight. There was no evidence of flight sufficient to justify such an instruction. State v. Bonner, 241 Or 404, 406 P2d 160 (1965). The remainder of the evidence presented a close question concerning defendant's complicity in the crime. We cannot say that the error was harmless in this case.
There is one additional subject which requires comment. Defendant's trial counsel was formerly District Attorney. He signed defendant's indictment, and appeared in court for the state in two preliminary matters in this case. He then, after returning to private practice, undertook the defense of this case. We assume that full disclosure was made by counsel to both the state and the defendant and each consented to the representation. The case was vigorously defended, and no apparent prejudice resulted. However, this is not a sound practice. We cannot conceive of any circumstance in which a repetition would not be ground for reversal of a conviction.
Defendant's conviction is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.