Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. VICTORIA HENRY, Appellant
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1968-10-16
Citations: 251 Or. 375
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. VICTORIA HENRY, Appellant.
Judges: Before McAllister, Presiding Justice, and O’Connell and Denecke, Justices.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 251
Pages: 375–376

Head Matter:
Argued July 11,
affirmed October 16, 1968
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. VICTORIA HENRY, Appellant.
445 P. 2d 877
Oscar D. Rowlett, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Jacob B. Tanzer, Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was George Van Hoomissen, District Attorney, Portland.
Before McAllister, Presiding Justice, and O’Connell and Denecke, Justices.

Opinion:
McAllister, j.
The defendant was indicted jointly with her husband, Albert Henry, for illegal possession of narcotics. The husband was tried separately, convicted and his conviction affirmed on appeal. State v. Henry, 249 Or 287, 437 P2d 851 (1968). The defendant was tried later, was also convicted, and now appeals from her conviction.
In this court defendant challenges only the denial of her motion to suppress the evidence because the police used electronic eavesdropping in gathering evidence against her. The police admittedly secreted a microphone and transmitter on an informer and listened to and recorded the informer's conversation with defendant and her husband while he purchased two marijuana cigarettes from them. In the husband's case we held that the same evidence was admissible because the information gained by electronic surveillance was not used to secure the warrant authorizing the search and seizure which produced the evidence which defendant sought to suppress. • Our ruling in State v. Albert Henry, supra, is controlling here.
Affirmed.