Title: State v. Waterhouse
Citation: 209 Or. 424, 307 P.2d 327
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: February 13, 1957

Reversed and remanded February 13, 1957.
*425 Oscar D. Howlett, Deputy District Attorney, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was William M. Langley, District Attorney, Portland.
Theodore D. Lachman, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LUSK, J.
This is an appeal by the state from an order sustaining defendant's demurrer to an indictment and dismissing the action.
*426 The prosecution is for the offense known as "interfering with the privacy of another" (ORS 167.165), and the charging part of the indictment reads:
Defendant's demurrer is based on the following grounds: (1) That the indictment includes prejudicial matter which would preclude a fair trial and procedural due process, to wit, the allegation that the defendant had been previously convicted of the crime *427 of rape; (2) that the same allegation is immaterial and irrelevant; (3) that the facts stated do not constitute a crime; and (4) that the indictment charges more than one crime. Ground 3 will be considered later in this opinion.
The other specifications challenge the propriety of including allegations of prior offenses in an indictment where a statute provides more severe punishment for one who has previously been convicted of such prior offenses.
ORS 167.050 is such a statute. It reads:
The crime of interfering with the privacy of another is a violation of ORS 167.165. The crime of rape, the previous offense alleged in this indictment, is denounced by ORS 163.210. The penalty provided for violation of ORS 167.165, if prosecuted in the circuit court, is imprisonment in the county jail for not less than three months nor more than one year, or a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $1,000, or both; while the enhanced penalty for that offense under ORS 167.050, where the defendant has been previously convicted of rape or any of the other crimes referred to in that section, is imprisonment in the state penitentiary for an indeterminate term not exceeding the natural life of the person convicted.
1. The contention that the indictment charges more than one crime is settled adversely to the defendant *428 by our decisions and does not call for discussion. Little v. Gladden, 202 Or 16, 19, 273 P2d 443; Castle v. Gladden, 201 Or 353, 360, 270 P2d 675; State v. Smith, 128 Or 515, 524, 273 P2d 323.
2. The question most debated, as to the propriety of including allegations of prior convictions in the indictment, where such convictions are material to the penalty, has also been decided by this court. In two cases entitled State v. Newlin, 92 Or 589, 596, 182 P 133, and 92 Or 597, 599, 182 P 135, we held, in opinions by Chief Justice McBRIDE, that such an allegation is not only proper but necessary for the validity of a judgment imposing the enhanced penalty. The charge in each of these cases was the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, apparently in violation of Oregon Laws 1915, ch 141. Section 36 of the act provided severer penalties for second and third convictions, but no procedure was prescribed. The indictments failed to allege that the defendant had been previously convicted of violation of the prohibition law, but the circuit court, nevertheless, imposed the increased penalty. On appeal to this court the judgments were set aside and the cases remanded for resentence solely because of the court's error in sentencing the defendant as a second offender. The court said:
The mere statement of the case sufficiently shows that the defendant's contention that this holding was dictum is completely lacking in foundation.
*429 3. The Newlin decisions accord with the great weight of authority. In Massey v. United States, 281 F 293, 297 (8th Cir), the court, referring to statutes providing for greater punishment of second or subsequent offenses by the same person, cited decisions of courts of 27 jurisdictions, including Oregon, in support of the following statement:
The reason for the rule is, as the court there said, that "The statement of a prior conviction is regarded as a part of the description and character of the offense intended to be punished, and as an essential ingredient of such aggravated offense." See, also, 1 Bishop on Criminal Law (9th ed) § 961 (quoted in State v. Smith, supra, 128 Or at p 522); III Wharton's Criminal Procedure 2309, § 1877; 1 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (12th ed) 498, § 233 (1955); 42 CJS 1057-1059, Indictments and Informations § 145; and the following annotations: 58 ALR 64; 82 ALR 366; 116 ALR 229; 132 ALR 107; 139 ALR 689.
"I regard it," said Judge Gray in People v. Sickles, 156 NY 541, 547, 51 NE 288, "as a necessary and logical conclusion, where an increased punishment is prescribed by the statute upon conviction for a second offense, that the prior conviction enters as an ingredient into the criminality of the prisoner. Not that the fact of the prior conviction tends, in any wise, to prove the commission of the second offense; but that *430 it aggravates the guilt of the prisoner and, as a hardened, or unreformed, criminal, subjects him to an increase punishment for the repeated crime."
Our statute provides that the indictment shall contain "A statement of the acts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended." (ORS 132.520 (2)).
4, 5. If the prior offense is an ingredient of the crime then it must be alleged in the indictment and the burden is upon the prosecutor to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. ORS 136.520.
This was the common-law procedure followed in England (Rex v. Jones, 6 Car &amp; P 391 [1834]), until it was changed by acts of Parliament, which provided, in substance, that so much of the indictment as charged a prior offense should be withheld from the jury until after a verdict of guilty had been rendered on the current charge, whereupon the question of a previous conviction should be determined by the jury if the defendant should deny it. 6 and 7 Wm IV, ch 111; 24 and 25 Vict Ch 99, § 27. See Graham v. West Virginia, 224 US 616, 625-626, 56 L ed 917, 32 S Ct 583. In sustaining the constitutionality of the habitual criminal law of New York, which was subsequently adopted by the Oregon legislature (State v. Smith, supra; Macomber v. State, 181 Or 208, 217, 180 P2d 793), the court, in People v. Sickles, supra at p 546, said with reference to the English procedure:
See, also, People v. Gowasky, 244 NY 451, 456, 155 NE 737, 58 ALR 9.
By court decision a procedure similar to that now employed in England has been adopted in Connecticut. State v. Ferrone, 96 Conn 160, 172-176, 113 A 452. But it should be observed that both in England and Connecticut prior offenses must be alleged in the indictment. It was so expressly held in State v. Delmonto, 110 Conn 298, 147 A 825. It should be remembered that we are dealing now only with the question whether the indictment is vulnerable to demurrer.
There is, of course, no common-law procedure as such in this state. Williams v. Pacific Surety Co., 66 Or 151, 155, 127 P 145, 131 P 1021, 132 P 959, 133 P 1186. When we speak of the common-law procedure in this opinion we mean the procedure in effect in England before it was changed by statute and which remains the same in Oregon by very force of the statutes of this state prescribing the contents of an indictment and the duty of the state to prove the material allegations thereof beyond a reasonable doubt.
6. The contention that the practice of proving a former conviction on the trial violates the defendant's constitutional right to procedural due process does not have the support of any authority that we have seen. It rests upon the proposition that it deprives the defendant of the presumption of innocence and relieves the prosecution of the burden of proving the defendant's guilt. The question was directly presented in People v. Sickles, supra, and resolved adversely to *432 the defendant's position. Judge Gray, writing the opinion for the court, said:
In Graham v. West Virginia, supra, the court held, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Hughes, later Chief Justice Hughes, that there is no deprivation of due process of law because the question as to a former conviction is passed upon separately. In the course of the opinion the court said:
To the same effect see People v. Coleman, 145 Cal 609, 79 P 283; 42 CJS 1058, Indictments and Informations § 145. In State v. Stump, 16 Wash2d 140, 149, 132 P2d 727, a case involving prior convictions under a liquor prohibition law, the court gave its approval to the practice of charging prior convictions in the information and proving them in connection with the main charge, although the statute failed to prescribe any procedure in that regard. We mention this case particularly because our attention has been called to the earlier Washington decision of State v. Kirkpatrick, 181 Wash 313, 43 P2d 44, in which the court held that, under the Washington habitual criminal law, which likewise does not prescribe the procedure for alleging and proving prior offenses, it was error to include an allegation of a prior conviction in the indictment. The court said "that we refuse to be bound by an archaic common-law practice which impinges upon the fair and impartial trial guaranteed by the Constitution to every one charged with a criminal offense." If this was intended to be a holding that the common-law practice is unconstitutional, then it has been overruled by State v. Stump, supra, unless one should accept the view, which no one has suggested, that the constitutional rights of persons accused of violating a prohibition law are something less than those of persons charged with other and, perhaps, more serious offenses.
In this connection it may be observed that the habitual criminal law of Washington originally provided for a separate proceeding for determining whether the defendant had been previously convicted. Laws of Washington 1903, p 125. In 1909 the law was *434 changed by omitting all reference to such procedure. In State ex rel Edelstein v. Huneke, 140 Wash 385, 249 P 784, 250 P 469, it was contended by the defendant that the procedure followed, namely, the filing of an information and the proof of prior convictions after he had been found guilty on the principal charge, was violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court, reviewing the authorities, concluded that they supported unanimously "the principle firmly ingrained in our criminal law that one may not be sentenced for a second offense unless the indictment aver and the evidence prove that it is a second offense." But it was said that ever since the change in the law in 1909, as before, the practice had been for prosecutors to proceed in the manner followed in the case before the court, and, while there was much force in the argument that failure to provide for procedure in the Law of 1909 "should be construed to be an intention of the Legislature to abandon the defendant to the harsh treatment followed under the common law," still the court could not "agree that the refusal of a prosecutor to apply the harsher rule vitiates the proceedings," and that no defendant had any right to demand that a certain procedure be followed unless the failure to do so might possibly work to his detriment. The claim of a violation of constitutional rights was, therefore, rejected.
Viewed against the background of the legislative and judicial history in Oregon relating to this subject, it seems reasonable to conclude that, in omitting to prescribe a different procedure when it enacted ORS 167.050, the legislature intended that the common-law procedure should govern. The statute was originally passed in 1953. The Newlin cases were decided in 1919. In 1921 the legislature passed an Habitual Criminal *435 Act, which provided that "former judgments of conviction shall be referred to in the indictments," Oregon Laws 1921, ch 70. This act was repealed by Oregon Laws 1927, ch 334, and a new Habitual Criminal Act was passed, taken, as previously stated, from New York, and containing procedural provisions under which an information alleging prior convictions must be filed and a hearing had thereon after a verdict of guilty has been found upon the charge in the indictment. In State v. Smith, supra, which was a prosecution under the 1927 Act, the defendant complained that the indictment should have alleged his prior convictions, but the court held that, in view of the repeal of the 1921 Act and the adoption of the 1927 Act, such an allegation was unnecessary. The court referred to People v. Gowasky, supra, a decision rendered shortly prior to the adoption of the New York Habitual Criminal Act by the Oregon legislature, and which held that it was not necessary to allege previous convictions since the statute provided a different procedure. The court noted that the New York court said that this "seems eminently fair to any prisoner," but that "the old practice, though no longer necessary, was still permissible." (128 Or at pp 522-523.)
The 1927 Act became OCLA, Title 28, ch 6. It was repealed by Oregon Laws 1947, ch 585, which is a reenactment of the habitual criminal law, containing in § 4 thereof some changes in the procedural provisions. Further changes were made by Oregon Laws 1951, ch 383, § 4, and again by Oregon Laws 1955, ch 663, § 5, now ORS 168.040, the last, no doubt, induced by our decision holding unconstitutional a portion of § 4 of the 1951 Act. See State v. Cory, 204 Or 235, 282 P2d 1054, decided April 20, 1955. Throughout its history, however, *436 since 1927 the habitual criminal law has provided a post trial procedure for proving prior offenses.
7, 8. Knowledge on the part of the legislature of these earlier enactments is presumed (Watts v. Gerking, 111 Or 641, 658, 22 P 318, 228 P 135, 34 ALR 1489; 50 Am Jur 354, Statutes § 354), and it is likewise presumed that the statute was enacted "in the light of such existing judicial decisions as have a direct bearing upon it." 50 Am Jur 312, Statutes § 321; State v. Raper, 174 Or 252, 254, 149 P 2d 165. The omission from the statute, therefore, of any procedural provisions whatever must be regarded as of controlling significance upon the question of the legislative intention. And the Habitual Criminal Act itself cannot be applied here because it relates only to felonies, while ORS 167.050 includes misdemeanors, to wit, interfering with the privacy of another.
It is contended that the common-law procedure applies only in cases of similar offenses. With the exception of two jurisdictions the contention is not supported by the authorities. Among the numerous decisions to the contrary are the following: People v. Rosen, 208 NY 169, 172, 101 NE 855; Blackburn v. State, 50 Oh St 428, 436, 36 NE 18; Larney v. City of Cleveland, 34 Oh St 599, 601; Commonwealth v. Payne, 242 Pa 394, 399, 89 A 559; State v. Reilly, 94 Conn 698, 110 A 550; State v. Findling, 123 Minn 413, 416, 144 NW 142; State v. Manecke, 139 Mo 545, 548, 41 SW 223; Commonwealth v. Walker, 163 Mass 226, 39 NE 1014; Wright v. State, 16 Okla Cr 458, 460, 184 P 158; Alsheimer v. State, 165 Wis 646, 647, 163 NW 255. The reason for the rule, as quoted above from Massey v. United States, viz., that "the statement of a prior conviction is regarded as a part of the description and character of the offense intended to be punished, and *437 as an essential ingredient of such aggravated offense," applies equally to disparate as to similar offenses. The Kansas court, however, has recognized the asserted distinction as between the habitual criminal law and the prohibition law of that state: Levell v. Simpson, 142 Kan 892, 52 P2d 372; State v. Jones, 147 Kan 8, 75 P2d 230; and the Washington court cited these cases with approval in State v. Stump, supra.
The principal objection to the common-law procedure is that the allegation and proof of prior offenses is likely to create prejudice against the defendant in the eyes of the jury. We recognize the force of the objection, but are unable to see that it is any less valid in the case of similar crimes than in the case of crimes of a different character. But, even on the basis of the reasoning of the Kansas court, the indictment in the case at bar, it would seem, should be sustained. In Levell v. Simpson, supra, the court said that the persistent violation of the prohibitory law is "a separate and distinct crime," that a first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a moderate fine and jail sentence, while a subsequent infraction "is a distinct felony," and, therefore, "all the formalities of a felonious charge should be pleaded in the information." All the offenses referred to in ORS 167.050 are of the same kind. The title of the original act, Oregon Laws 1953, ch 641 (of which ORS 167.050 is amendatory), is "AN ACT Relating to criminal offenses motivated by or involving sexual stimulation," etc. The offense of interfering with the privacy of another is, as stated, a misdemeanor. By ORS 167.050 it is made a felony punishable by life imprisonment if the defendant has been previously convicted of rape or any of the other crimes enumerated. The same necessity exists here for pleading "all the formalities of a *438 felonious charge" as under the Kansas prohibitory law.
It is contended that ORS 137.080-137.110, both inclusive, and 137.990 prescribe the procedure for determining the penalty in this class of cases. These sections provide the manner in which, after a plea or verdict of guilty, circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the punishment may be brought to the attention of the court. They are applicable only in a case "where a discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment to be inflicted." ORS 137.080. No such discretion is conferred by ORS 167.050. The statutes invoked by the defendant were not enacted for the purpose of determining the penalty which the law prescribes for the particular offense, but the penalty to be imposed within the limits of the governing statute in view of the existing circumstances. To be specific, the penalty for the crime for which the defendant was indicted, if it be a first offense, is at the most imprisonment in the county jail for one year and a fine of $1,000. Should a person be indicted for that offense and convicted, the court might have a hearing and determine whether the maximum penalty should be imposed or something less than the maximum. The court could consider his previous conviction of rape, if he had been so convicted, as a circumstance affecting its exercise of discretion. But the court could not sentence him as a second offender because he had never been charged as such in any manner known to the law. The contention only serves to illustrate the need of applying the common-law procedure in the absence of legislation prescribing a different procedure.
9. As stated, one of the grounds of the demurrer is that the indictment does not allege sufficient facts to constitute the crime charged. The point made is that *439 the indictment fails to allege, in the words of the statute, that the apartment entered by the defendant "was not his own." It does allege that the defendant entered the apartment "without the consent of Evelyn Mary White, the lessee of said apartment." We think that this allegation sufficiently negatives the notion that it was the apartment of the defendant.
10. We conclude that the indictment is sufficient, that it is drawn in the only manner permissible under the law of this state if the defendant is to be prosecuted as for a second offense, and that the procedure to be followed violates no constitutional rights of the defendant. The legislature can provide a procedure fairer to the accused, as in the case of the Habitual Criminal Act, but it has not seen fit to do so, and it is not the province of this court to interfere with the policy established by the legislature when acting within the limits of its constitutional powers.
By the terms of the statute here dealt with a person twice convicted of violations of what is known as a "peeping Tom" statute  a misdemeanor , or a person twice convicted of violations of ORS 167.145, relating to indecent exposure,  likewise a misdemeanor , is liable to be punished by life imprisonment. Consideration of the extreme severity of the penalty in its relation to the gravity of such offenses may suggest to the legislative assembly the advisability of ameliorating amendments. We make this observation with full realization of the difficulty society experiences in attempting to cope with the evil aimed at by the statute.
The court erred in sustaining the demurrer. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity to this opinion.
*440 PERRY, C.J., dissenting.
I am unable to agree with the majority opinion and, therefore, feel that I should set forth my separate views.
It appears that the majority opinion relies upon State v. Newlin, 92 Or 589, 182 P 133, which holds [p. 596] that an enhanced penalty cannot be imposed by the trial judge "in the absence of an allegation in the indictment charging the prior conviction." This holding is based upon a rule of law, according to the majority opinion, that "if the prosecutor desires to invoke the severer punishment provided as to second or subsequent offenders, the indictment or information must allege the fact of prior conviction." Massey v. United States, 281 F 293, 297. The reason being that "the statement of a prior conviction is regarded as a part of the description and character of the offense intended to be punished and as an essential ingredient of such aggravated offense."
The majority opinion then points out that this rule of procedure was adopted into this country from the common law of England and, because such procedure "was, probably, deemed a defect in criminal procedure," it later was changed by statute in England.
It is then argued that, because in the Habitual Criminal Act, ORS 168.011 to 168.040, there is provided a procedure for invoking the enhanced penalty, its absence from ORS 167.050 shows the legislative intent that the procedure known to the common law should be observed. It is upon this point that I cannot agree with the majority.
As a foundation upon which to build the argument that we must use the common-law procedure, the majority state in effect that the prior offense is "an *441 ingredient" of the second offense. People v. Sickles, 156 NY 541, 51 NE 288.
Note should be taken that, in the Sickles case, in order to reach that conclusion it was necessary to overrule, in effect, the logical language of Judge Finch in People v. Raymond, 96 NY 38, 39, where the court stated:
And it should be further noted that the New York court recognized the entire problem as solely a procedural matter, for in People v. Sickles, supra, p. 289, it stated:
While the majority are willing to add the prior offenses to the indictment as a part of the subsequent offense charged to make the common-law procedure applicable, they seem to be unwilling to follow the clear dictates of the legislature upon this procedural point. Logically, ORS 1.160 must be interpreted with ORS 167.050. ORS 167.050 is only an enhanced penalty statute with no procedure set out therein for its enforcement. ORS 1.160 provides procedure for that very situation.
*442 As will be later pointed out, the Newlin case, supra, relied upon by the majority as stare decisis of the issue presented, is neither authority for nor against the position taken. That case, as pointed out in the majority opinion, was decided before the legislature had enacted any similar statute governing procedure where an act provided for an enhanced penalty for prior offenders.
The law of England as it existed at the time of the American Revolution was adopted as a part of the organic law of this state (United States F. &amp; G. Co. v. Bramwell, 108 Or 261, 217 P 332, 32 ALR 829) only insofar as the law was cognizance with the public policy, the constitution, and statutory enactments of the state. Re Water Rights of Hood River, 114 Or 112, 227 P 1065; Pacific Power &amp; Light Co. v. Bayer et al., 273 US 647, 47 SC 245, 71 L Ed 821; Peery v. Fletcher, 93 Or 43, 182 P 143.
ORS 1.160 provides:
We have held this act applicable to our code of criminal procedure. State v. Ridder, 185 Or 134, 202 P2d 482; State v. Chase, 106 Or 263, 211 P 920.
ORS 1.160, properly interpreted, it seems to me, clearly states that when a judge is granted jurisdiction to sentence under an enhanced penalty statute, and no procedure is provided in that statute, a mode of procedure must be adopted by the courts most conformable *443 with the spirit of any procedural statutes then existing by prior enactment covering a similar situation. The Habitual Criminal Act provides procedure for just such a situation as is now before us, and it is clear to me that the legislature intended that we use the mode of procedure provided under that act. Since by statute the courts are directed to use a mode of procedure most conformable to the spirit of our own procedural statutes, if, as here, we have a procedural statute applicable to a situation similar in nature, the courts are required to follow the laws of this state and cannot proceed as at the common law.
The opinion of the majority leaves with the prosecuting officer in each jurisdiction the option of invoking the enhanced penalty statute or not, as he shall see fit. It also permits no method by which a vicious offender may be made subject to the enhanced penalty statute unless his prior crimes are known and alleged prior to his conviction upon a second offense.
Therefore, in my mind, there is no room for argument that the courts of this state must rely upon outmoded procedures that are admittedly defective, contrary to public policy, and shock our American sense of justice.
I would affirm the trial court, and, therefore, dissent.
Mr. Justice WARNER concurs in this dissent.
WARNER, J., dissenting.
The majority opinion clings to a common-law rule which, in my opinion, is prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant in a trial upon the merits of the principal crime charged. To say no constitutional rights are invaded begs the question and ignores the impact upon a jury who at the very outset of the case *444 are informed that the defendant has been convicted of misdemeanors or felonies of a sexual implication. To ignore the reaction conjured in the minds of the average juror by thus cataloging such crimes at that juncture is to deny the patterns of human experience. The following statement from State v. Ferrone, 96 Conn 160, 113 A 452, 457, eloquently expresses what one can normally expect in the jury box under such circumstances:
There is only one question of importance for us to decide in this matter. Shall we reject the common-law rule followed in the two cases of State v. Newlin (92 Or 589, 596, 182 P 133 and 92 Or 597, 599, 182 P 135) and which continues the prejudicial atmosphere deplored in State v. Ferrone, supra, or shall we embrace the opportunity presented to substitute a more enlightened procedure patterned after the Habitual Criminal Act as since adopted by the legislature?
In Carroll v. Local No. 269 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 133 NJ Eq 144, 31 A2d 223, it is said, at p 225:
I submit, in terms of Carroll, supra, that the common-law rule followed in the two Newlin cases, supra, has long since "lost its usefulness in social evolution" since it was last employed in this state nearly 40 years ago. I also note that England, the birthplace of the rule followed in the two Newlin cases, repudiated it in 1836 by 6 and 7 Wm IV, ch 111, more than 120 years ago. Certainly the social evolution in the changing times of the intervening years has worked a more humane and considered regard for the defendants at bar, as witness the provisions of the Habitual Criminal Act, which provides for enhanced penalties, yet protects the accused from the prejudices engendered by the outmoded procedure of the rule followed in the two Newlin cases.
Why should we hesitate when we not only have a pattern to guide us in substituting a precedure in lieu of that followed in the instant indictment, but also have, as pointed out in the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice PERRY, statutory authority, if not an express duty, to provide a procedure implementing ORS 167.050, arising because of the legislature's failure to do so. I refer to the powers conferred on the court by ORS 1.160.
If we fail to embrace this opportunity to avoid the prejudicial effect of the common-law rule followed in the two Newlin cases, we place ourselves in a rather anomalous position so far as devotion to principle is concerned.
I refer to the rules which so rigorously exclude on the civil side of the court all evidence in negligence *446 cases of previous accident, and which on the criminal side, bars evidence of other crimes in the trial of a criminal case: the reason being, in both types of cases, because of the prejudicial effect of such evidence on the minds of jurors. For application of this rule in civil cases, see Warner v. Maus, 209 Or 529, 304 P2d 423; Rayburn v. Day, 126 Or 135, 143, 268 P 1002. For illustrations of the rule applied as in criminal cases, see State v. Houghton, 43 Or 125, 71 P 982; State v. McClard, 81 Or 510, 160 P 130; State v. Casey, 108 Or 386, 213 P 771, 217 P 632.
I do not point to these cases as authority for declaring the instant indictment invalid. I refer to them only by way of demonstrating our consciousness of the prejudicial character of evidence of previous involvements of the defendant, civil or criminal in character, and contend that if we sustain the indictment in this matter with its record of many previous crimes, and its consequent prejudicial effect, we are blowing hot and cold at the same time on our position of proper and previous jealous devotion to rules of law which eliminate from trials, criminal or civil, reference to previous crimes or previous acts of negligence, as the case may be.
The inconsistency of the majority position in this respect assumes a more striking dimension when the court refuses to utilize the power which it has (ORS 1.160), although armed with the means and authority for implementing the legislative intent by adopting what I venture to call a more modern and enlightened procedure and in a pattern long ago receiving legislative approval.
"The very essence of the common law is its flexibility and adaptability. * * * It is one of the established principles of the common law which has been *447 carried along with its growth, that precedents must yield to the reason of different or modified conditions." Re Water Rights of Hood River, 114 Or 112, 180, 227 P 1065. "While the doctrine of stare decisis attaches great weight to precedents, it does not demand that courts adhere to them if satisfied they are manifestly wrong." Noonan v. City of Portland, 161 Or 213, 240, 88 P2d 808. In State v. Mellenberger (a criminal case), 163 Or 233, 95 P2d 709, 128 ALR 1506, at page 259, and again in Safeway Stores v. State Board of Agriculture, 198 Or 43, 255 P2d 564, at page 81, we quoted with approval from a legal essay by Daniel H. Chamberlain on the subject of "Stare Decisis." I now quote only a part therefrom:
Also see the dissenting opinion in Landgraver v. Emanuel Lutheran Hospital, 203 Or 489, 526, 280 P2d 301, and cases there cited.
The late Justice TOOZE was originally assigned the task of writing an opinion in this matter and at the same time in its companion case, State v. Waterhouse. The legal problems presented by these two cases are identical. Both defendants were charged with sexual crimes or acts relating thereto and because of previous convictions from crimes of the same general character, were subject to enhanced penalties under ORS 167.050, if found guilty under the indictments which are the subject of appeal in the Johnson *448 and Waterhouse cases. The only distinguishing difference between the two indictments is: the defendant Johnson was indicted for a felony (ORS 167.045) and the defendant Waterhouse for the commission of a misdemeanor (ORS 167.165). Justice TOOZE elected to make the Johnson case the basis for his opinion, whereas the Waterhouse case is the foundation for the majority opinion.
Justice TOOZE died a few days after his opinion was distributed and, therefore, was not present to defend it when it received its first consideration and failed to command the necessary support to entitle it to become the decision of the court.
As is so self-evident from Justice TOOZE'S opinion, he gave to the questions raised his usual close attention and excellent legal appraisal. During the period he was so engaged, he talked to me frequently about it and I know that had it failed, as it did, to become the majority opinion he intended to dissent and offer it in support and explanation for his action. I advised him then that I would join in his dissent. I have discovered nothing since to dissuade me from that earlier made judgment.
I frankly confess my own conclusions are derived to a very large extent from Justice TOOZE'S well-considered and scholarly analysis of the problem before us. For that reason and as a tribute to the memory of his judicial excellence, I feel warranted in including his offering on this subject as a part of this dissent.
Before doing so, I have, in an effort to condense, deleted the opening or introductory paragraph, the paragraphs which immediately follow the first paragraph and which set up the charging clauses of the indictment and the terms of the demurrer in toto. A few other deletions are made in the body of the opinion *449 and as there shown do not impair the force of Justice TOOZE'S argument.
The following is the opinion of Justice TOOZE to which I refer:
ORS 132.590 provides:
Under the code of criminal procedure in this state no provision is made for a motion to strike immaterial parts of an indictment. With one exception not material to this case (ORS 135.510), defects in an indictment can be challenged only by demurrer. ORS 135.630 provides:
The demurrer to the indictment in this case was sustained upon the ground that it did not conform to the requirements of ORS 132.520, supra, and that the allegations therein of prior offenses on the part of the defendant were prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant upon the merits of the principal crime charged.
ORS 167.045 provides: [deleted]
The state contends that the foregoing allegations respecting prior offenses on the part of the defendant were included in the indictment as necessary averments in order that the court could sentence the defendant under the enhanced penalty statute applicable thereto. That contention presents the principal issue for determination on this appeal. ORS 167.050 provides as follows: [deleted because it is quoted in its entirety in the majority opinion]
Before discussing the principal issue raised on this appeal, we will dispose of the question of whether that issue was properly raised by the demurrer filed on behalf of the defendant. The law is well settled that if an indictment contains surplus words or allegations, and such surplusage may be deleted and sufficient allegations remain to sustain a conviction, then *451 the demurrer to the indictment is properly overruled. State v. Dormitzer, 123 Or 165, 169, 261 P 426; State v. Emmons, 55 Or 352, 358, 104 P 882, 106 P 451; State v. Humphreys, 43 Or 44, 48, 70 P 824. However, in those cases there was no discussion as to whether the surplusage was in truth prejudicial, and in none of them could the surplusage be considered prejudicial.
It is our opinion that when the surplusage is prejudicial, the indictment ceases to be a statement of the principal offense in ordinary and concise language, and is subject to demurrer. Reading ORS 132.520, supra, ORS 135.630, supra, and ORS 132.590, supra, together, that would seem to be the plain intent of the law. It is obvious that the pleading of the prior convictions in the indictment would prejudice the defendant and might well lead to a conviction upon general principles rather than for the specific offense charged. If the arguments presented to us by the defendant upon the principal issue are sound, then the allegations of prior convictions should not have been included in the indictment, and such allegations would be and are completely irrelevant to the principal offense charged.
The precise question now under discussion was considered by the Supreme Court of Indiana in Torphy v. State, 187 Ind 73, 75, 118 NE 355. In that case the indictment contained an allegation of a prior conviction. This allegation was irrelevant because the statute defining the principal offense charged made no provision for enhanced punishment in that type of case. The court stated:
The distinction between mere surplusage and prejudicial surplusage is aptly made in Ford v. United States, 10 F2d 339, 344, as follows:
The Indiana court reversed because of the failure of the trial court to sustain the motion to strike the irrelevant allegation of prior conviction. As before observed, in this state a motion to strike is not available, but in lieu thereof, the statute provides for a demurrer. State v. Conklin, 47 Or 509, 511, 84 P 482. It is our opinion that the inclusion of the allegations of prior convictions in the instant indictment subjected the indictment to demurrer on the ground that it does not substantially conform to the requirements of ORS 132.520, supra, if we shall find that such allegations were irrelevant and immaterial to the charge of the principal offense. That brings us to a discussion of the principal issue presented on this appeal. The crime defined in ORS 167.045, supra, defines the offense charged against the defendant in the instant indictment.[*] The principal offense is charged in the words of the statute and is sufficient. The crime defined in ORS 167.045, supra, is one of those crimes for which an enhanced penalty is provided under the provisions of ORS 167.050, supra. It will be observed that ORS 167.050, supra, contains no provision as to the procedure that should be followed in connection with the imposition of the enhanced penalty in a proper case. In the absence of such a provision the state argues that, following the common-law procedure, the prior convictions must be alleged in the indictment and proved on the trial of the principal offense, or the enhanced *454 penalty cannot be imposed upon conviction. Defendant argues that this procedure is highly prejudicial to him in that it deprives him of trial before an impartial jury, abrogates the fundamental guarantee of the presumption of innocence, and puts his character in issue without his consent. In the alternative, defendant suggests that the court could prescribe a fair procedure for indicting and sentencing under this particular enhanced penalty statute. He suggests that such a procedure might be to file a separate information under which the questions of fact could be determined by a jury after the defendant had been found guilty of the principal charge; this is the procedure provided by ORS 168.040 for the imposition of enhanced penalties under the habitual criminal act of this state. ORS 168.010 to ORS 168.070, inclusive. The habitual criminal act of this state is nothing more nor less than an enhanced penalty statute.
Prior to the adoption of the habitual criminal act of this state in 1927, we had held that in order to impose an enhanced penalty in a case where such penalty was proper under the statute, it was necessary to allege the prior conviction in the indictment for the principal offense. In other words, we adopted and followed the common-law rule in that respect. State v. Newlin, 92 Or 589, 596, 182 P 133; 92 Or 597, 599, 182 P 135. In both the Newlin cases the defendant had been indicted upon a charge of unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. The indictments did not contain any allegations as to prior convictions of the defendant for violations of the statute involved, but, upon conviction, enhanced penalties were imposed. Because of the failure of the indictments to allege the prior convictions, we set the judgments aside and remanded the causes to the trial court with directions to re-sentence the defendant without *455 regard to any previous convictions. In the first Newlin case above cited, Chief Justice McBRIDE, speaking for the court, said:
It is stated in 22 Cyc 356, Indictments and Informations, upon which we relied in the Newlin cases, as follows:
That was the common-law rule, and at the time we decided the Newlin cases (1919), it was supported by the overwhelming weight of authority. However, it must be kept in mind that the Newlin cases were decided several years before the legislature of this state enacted the habitual criminal act and therein prescribed the procedure to be followed in the imposition of enhanced penalties. It is manifest that when the legislature adopted this procedure under the habitual *456 criminal act, it did so with knowledge of the common-law rule as to procedure, as well as with knowledge of our decisions in the Newlin cases where we had approved that procedure. In the light of this, it is reasonable to infer that the legislature clearly intended to abrogate the common-law rule of procedure insofar as the imposition of enhanced penalties under the habitual criminal act were concerned.
Since our decisions in the Newlin cases, and particularly, since the adoption of the procedure provided in the habitual criminal act, we have not been called upon to decide the question whether allegations of prior convictions must or may be included in an indictment where an enhanced penalty is to be imposed, until the instant case. At the outset we acknowledge that there are respectable authorities supporting both sides of this question. However, we are of the opinion that the better reasoning is to be found in the decisions of those courts which have shown a high regard for the fundamental right of an accused to a fair and impartial trial upon the specific offense with which he is charged  a trial wholly free from prejudice  and which courts have denied both the necessity and propriety of alleging the prior convictions in the indictment for the principal crime.
In our sister state of Washington the Supreme Court in State ex rel. Edelstein v. Huneke, 140 Wash 385, 387, 249 P 784, and in a case where the defendant made the claim that the prior conviction should be alleged in the indictment as a condition for the imposition of an enhanced penalty, upheld the lower court's procedure of charging and trying the two issues separately. The court said:
In State v. Kirkpatrick, 181 Wash 313, 316, 43 P2d 44, the Washington court reversed a conviction where the prior convictions had been alleged in the indictment. The court said:
In State v. Stump, 16 Wash2d 140, 132 P2d 727, the Washington court refused to apply the procedure used for the imposition of enhanced penalties under the habitual criminal statute to an aggravated offense *459 statute with respect to prohibition. The statute involved made it unlawful to keep or possess liquor with intent to sell the same. This provision of the law was a part of the statute dealing with the question of prohibition. The statute provided that "every person guilty of a violation of this act for which no penalty has been specifically provided shall be liable on conviction, for a first offense to a penalty of not more than $300.00 or to imprisonment for not more than two months, with or without hard labor, or both; for a second offense to imprisonment for not more than six months, with or without hard labor; and for a third or subsequent offense to imprisonment for not more than one year, with or without hard labor." The court pointed out what it claimed to be a distinction between this statute and the habitual criminal act. It pointed out that under the practice in the state of Washington in all cases involving statutes such as that then before the court it had been the custom to plead the prior conviction in the indictment. The court said:
*460 It will be observed that the court spoke of this rule as applicable to statutes of the type then being considered by the court; that is, a statute which in defining the crime also prescribed the enhanced penalty for subsequent convictions. In seeking to make a distinction between the type of statute then under consideration and the habitual criminal act, the Washington court cited with approval two cases from Kansas. State v. Jones, 147 Kan 8, 75 P2d 230; and Levell v. Simpson, 142 Kan 892, 52 P2d 372. In the Jones case the crime charged was similar to that present in the Washington case. The Kansas prohibition act, like that of Washington, contained a provision for enhanced penalty upon a second conviction, but different from the Washington statute, it provided that a second conviction of a violation of the act should constitute a felony. In speaking of this provision of its prohibition law, and the procedure to make it effective, the Kansas court said:
Thus it appears that the Kansas court held it necessary to allege and prove the prior conviction because the second infraction of the prohibitory law constituted a distinct crime; to-wit, a felony. That is not the basis for the decision of the Washington court in the Stump case. In the Levell case, supra, the Kansas court held that pleading the former convictions in an indictment charging the principal offense, or offering proof thereof upon the trial, was improper and unnecessary to the imposition of enhanced penalties under the habitual criminal act. In the Stump case the Washington court neither criticized nor overruled its decision in the Edelstein case, supra. Neither did it mention the Kirkpatrick case, supra. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the distinction made by the Washington court in the Stump case is a proper distinction, nevertheless, we are of the opinion that ORS 167.050 is more akin to the Washington habitual criminal act than it is to the aggravated offense statute considered in State v. Stump.
It is obvious that the primary purpose of the legislature in the adoption of ORS 167.050 was to take out of circulation the confirmed sex criminal. It intended that when one was shown to be such a confirmed criminal by the repeated commission of sex crimes, he should no longer be permitted to roam at large as a constant menace to the youth of this state. It certainly desired that when one was convicted of a sex crime, who had theretofore been convicted of a similar offense, he should suffer the enhanced penalty.
*462 It is manifest that if it were required that a prior conviction be alleged in the indictment and established by proof on the trial, as a condition precedent to the imposition of the enhanced penalty upon conviction, the primary purpose of the legislature in enacting the enhanced penalty statute in question would, in many cases, be defeated. It often happens that when the grand jury indicts a person for the commission of a crime, it does not have before it knowledge of a prior conviction of such person. It often happens that the discovery of the fact of a prior conviction or prior convictions is not made until long after the indictment has been returned and most frequently not until after conviction, and in some cases until after sentence. Under the procedure provided in the habitual criminal act this danger of one escaping the penalty which properly should be imposed upon him is largely eliminated.
Thus the procedure for the imposition of enhanced penalties as provided in the habitual criminal act is not only of benefit to the defendant in that he is not prejudiced by the inclusion of prior convictions in the indictment charging the principal offense, but it also is of benefit to the state in that escape from the punishment the law provides for in the given case is rendered quite improbable.
The practice in England of alleging in an indictment for the principal offense a former conviction as a condition for the imposition of an enhanced penalty was abrogated by statute in 1861. 24 and 25 Vict, ch 96, § 116. The statute provided, in substance, that in any indictment for an offense committed after a previous conviction of a felony or indictable misdemeanor, it should be sufficient, after charging the subsequent offense, to state that the offender was, at a certain time and place, convicted of a felony or indictable misdemeanor *463 without otherwise describing the previous felony or misdemeanor. The act then provided:
The Supreme Court of errors of the state of Connecticut approved and adopted this English practice. State v. Ferrone, 96 Conn 160, 175, 113 A 452. The Connecticut court said:
The opinion in the Ferrone case contains a splendid discussion of the reasons why the issue of a prior conviction should not be brought to the attention of a trial jury until after the defendant had been found guilty of the particular offense of which he was then charged. We quote with approval the following portion of that discussion:
In State v. Findling, 123 Minn 413, 416, 144 NW 142, decided in 1913, the Supreme Court of Minnesota, *466 although following the common-law rule, questioned its fairness. The court said:
Subsequent to the decision in the Findling case the legislature of Minnesota enacted the habitual criminal act of that state. Section 610.31 of the Minnesota act is substantially the same as ORS 168.040 of our habitual criminal act. In State v. Zywicki, 175 Minn 508, 510, 221 NW 900, the Supreme Court of Minnesota held that the procedure for the imposition of enhanced penalties provided for in M.S.A. 610.31 did not deprive the defendant of any of his constitutional rights. We quote from the opinion as follows:
We have taken substantially the same position with respect to our own habitual criminal act. In State v. Smith, 128 Or 515, 524, 273 P 323, we said:
Also in State v. Smith, 128 Or at page 521, we stated as follows:
Also see Little v. Gladden, 202 Or 16, 19, 273 P2d 443; Castle v. Gladden, 201 Or 353, 360, 270 P2d 675.
In Shaw v. Utecht, 232 Minn 82, 88, 43 NW2d 781, the court said:
Foot note 11, referred to in the above quotation from the Minnesota decision, reads as follows:
In Commonwealth v. Ciccarelli, 42 D &amp; C 643, the Pennsylvania court held that whenever by statutory *470 enactment a second offense must carry a greater sentence than a first offense, the second offense is an offense different in kind and character from the first offense, and the indictment must plead a conviction of and sentence for the prior offense. However, in the later Pennsylvania case of Commonwealth v. Scott, 54 D &amp; C 243, the court limited the Ciccarelli case to a holding that the prior convictions must be alleged in the indictment, but stated that the judge in that case did not discuss the procedural difficulties in bringing that averment either before the jury or the court. In the Scott case the court, recognizing the prejudice to the accused by allowing evidence of that character or reputation, stated that the situation called for corrective legislation. But without waiting for such legislation, the court itself set out the procedure that should have been followed in the case. The procedure outlined by the court was similar to that provided by the statute in England and also adopted in Connecticut. Because the trial court had not followed such procedure, the court held that the enhanced penalty imposed upon the conviction was unlawful.
In many of the cases which held that it was necessary to allege in the indictment the prior conviction as a condition to the imposition of an enhanced penalty, it is evident that the courts were led to the conclusion because of a belief that they were bound to follow the common law. We are not so bound.
In this state we have a statute not common to all other states. ORS 1.160 provides:
We considered the foregoing statute in Williams v. Pacific Surety Co., 66 Or 151, 155, 127 P 145, 131 P 1021, 132 P 959, 133 P 1189, where the question before us was whether or not the plaintiff could bring an action without joining his co-obligee in a bond as a plaintiff. In adopting a procedure different from the traditional common-law procedure, we said:
In State v. Ridder, 185 Or 134, 139, 202 P2d 482, we considered § 13-715, OCLA, which is now ORS 1.160, in connection with ch 62, Oregon Laws 1945, which gives a defendant who has pleaded guilty the right to appeal from a judgment of conviction, where that judgment imposes excessive, cruel, or unusual punishment. That statute did not make provision for a procedure to be followed in bringing to this court the record of the circuit court in that type of a proceeding. Pursuant to the provisions of § 13-715, OCLA [ORS 1.160], we prescribed the method of procedure to be followed under ch 62, Oregon Laws 1945.
Another case in which this court rejected the common-law procedure in favor of a better and fairer procedure is State v. Durham, 177 Or 574, 580, 164 P2d 448, 162 ALR 422. In that case the circuit court had denied the defendant the right to peremptory challenges *472 in the selection of the jury called in connection with the supplementary proceedings provided for by the habitual criminal act. In speaking for the court, Mr. Chief Justice BELT, in part said:
In arriving at this conclusion in the Durham case, the New York case of People v. Reese, 258 NY 89, 179 NE 305, 79 ALR 1329, was recognized as contra, and the reasoning of the New York court was expressly rejected. In New York, despite the procedure set forth *473 in its habitual criminal act respecting the imposition of enhanced penalties, the court has held that it is nevertheless permissible to allege the prior convictions in the indictment for the offense of which the defendant is charged. People v. Gowasky, 244 NY 451, 155 NE 737, 58 ALR 9, 14. This conclusion of the New York court stated in one sentence of its opinion appears somewhat inconsistent with other parts of the decision. After discussing the English practice heretofore referred to, and that of Massachusetts and West Virginia, the court in the Gowasky case said:
Considering the substantial reasons existing for the procedure set forth in our habitual criminal act, we are of the opinion that that procedure is exclusive, and we do not agree with the New York court that it is still permissible to follow the common-law procedure. We prefer to follow the course taken by the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
It might be argued that having provided a procedure for the enforcement of enhanced penalties under the habitual criminal act, but having omitted to make such provision in ORS 167.050, the legislature manifested an intention to have the common-law rule apply in all prosecutions in which ORS 167.050 might become *474 applicable. On the other hand, and with better reason, we believe, it may be argued that inasmuch as at the time ORS 167.050 was enacted, a definite procedure for the imposition of enhanced penalties had been provided by law and had been continuously followed in this state for a period of more than 25 years, the legislature assumed that such had become the well-established practice in all such cases, and that it was unnecessary to again set forth the procedure to be followed under the later enhanced penalty statute. It is not reasonable to suppose that the legislature intended that there should be one procedure under the habitual criminal act and another and different procedure under this statute when the primary purposes of both statutes are precisely the same. It abrogated the common-law rule when it enacted the habitual criminal act; it would be unreasonable to infer that it intended to revive it in this particular statute, especially when no sound reason for such action appears, and there is none. ORS 1.160, supra, fully justifies us in adopting as the procedure to be followed under ORS 167.050, the same procedure provided under the habitual criminal act. That procedure is fair both to the state and to the defendant.
Our conclusion is fortified by the legislative history of this state. In 1921 the legislature adopted an enhanced penalty statute and expressly provided that prior convictions should be alleged in the indictment for the principal offense as a condition precedent to the imposition of the enhanced penalty. In other words, it adopted the common-law procedure approved in the Newlin cases. Ch 70, Oregon Laws 1921. In 1927, however, when it first enacted the habitual criminal act, the legislature provided the procedure now followed and expressly repealed the act of 1921. Ch 334, *475 § 5, Oregon Laws 1927. Thus, the legislature evidenced a clear intent to abolish the common-law rule in this state." And the opinion concluded with a statement that the judgment should be confirmed.
For the reasons above stated, I think the order of the circuit court should be affirmed in this case and in State v. Johnson, also decided this day.
I also concur in the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice PERRY.
Chief Justice PERRY concurs in this dissent.
[*]  Note: ORS 167.045 defines the crime charged against the defendant Johnson and ORS 167.165 defines the crime charged against the defendant Waterhouse.