Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. GORDON ROY MATISCHECK, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1975-05-05
Citations: 21 Or. App. 300
Docket Number: No. 16-842
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. GORDON ROY MATISCHECK, Appellant.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Langtry and Fort, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 21
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
Submitted on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court April 24, former opinion modified,
affirmed May 5, 1975
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. GORDON ROY MATISCHECK, Appellant.
(No. 16-842)
535 P2d 102
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Langtry and Fort, Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This case is again before us on remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of State v. Hammang, 271 Or 749, 534 P2d 501 (1975).
We adhere to our prior analysis of the prosecutorial-knowledge element of the double-jeopardy test of State v. Brown, 262 Or 442, 497 P2d 1191 (1972). However, the Supreme Court's Hammang decision establishes that the Brown rule does not bar subsequent trial on a charge arising from a single act or trans: action when a former "prosecution" consisted only of a guilty plea. Factually, that is the situation in this case.
Former opinion modified. Affirmed.