Title: State v. Pacific Powder Co.
Citation: 226 Or. 502, 360 P.2d 530
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: March 29, 1961

Affirmed March 29, 1961.
Avery W. Thompson, District Attorney, Roseburg, argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant.
E.K. Murray, Tacoma, Washington, and Edwin E. Allen, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Murray, Graves &amp; Murray, Tacoma, and Bartle and Allen, Eugene.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, WARNER, PERRY, SLOAN, O'CONNELL and GOODWIN, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
PERRY, J.
An indictment for manslaughter was returned by *503 the grand jury of Douglas county against the defendant. The charging part of the indictment is as follows:
*504 A demurrer was filed by the defendant which was sustained by the trial court and the State appeals.
The principal ground upon which defendant bases its demurrer is its contention that under the laws of this state a corporation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of involuntary manslaughter.
The people of this state, through their legislature, enacted ORS 163.040[1] and ORS 163.080[2] defining the crime of manslaughter and fixing the penalty for violation.
ORS 161.010, insofar as material, reads as follows:
The same thought was expressed by the legislature in Deady's Laws 1864, ch 53, p 576, 577:
While at early common law it was thought that a corporation as a corporate entity could not commit a crime, 1 Blackstone's Commentaries 476, with the growth and development of the use of the corporate entity in the modern business world this view has changed.
In 10 Fletcher Cyc. 647, Corporations, Crimes and Penalties § 4942, it is stated:
In the field of criminal responsibility the state jurisdictions, with the exception of New Jersey, have refused to extend corporate responsibility to crimes "involving personal violence and specifically, homicide or manslaughter," 3 Modern Corporation Law 727, ch 66, Torts and Crimes § 1681. Commonwealth v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., (1913) 152 Ky 320, 153 SW 459; State v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co., (1917) 90 NJL 372, 103 A 685, (1920) 94 NJL 171, 111 A 257; Commonwealth v. Peoples Nat. Gas Co., (1954) 102 Pitt Leg J 348.
However, it is recognized in a leading case upon this subject to be within the legislative power to enact specific legislation which would create corporate criminal responsibility for acts of misfeasance and nonfeasance resulting in homicide. People v. Rochester Ry. &amp; L. Co., 195 NY 102, 88 NE 22.
Therefore, the specific question is: Was there a *506 legislative intent to include corporations within the criminal field of involuntary manslaughter by use of the phrase, "`Person' includes corporations as well as natural persons?"
If these words stood alone and unqualified, the state's argument, that corporations are included, would be quite persuasive. But they are qualified by the legislative injunction that the inclusion of corporations the same as the individual person should be used unless "the context requires otherwise."
Involuntary manslaughter lies in legal contemplation within the framework of homicide. This has been clearly pointed out by this court in numerous cases such as State v. Trent, 122 Or 444, 454, 252 P 975, 259 P 893, where we said:
The decisions of the courts of all jurisdictions and this court uniformly disclose that homicide by its very nature lies in the field of inherently human relations, for it includes murder, and has been defined by this court as follows:
*507 No doubt should lie in anyone's mind that the legislature ever considered making corporate entities criminally liable for murder, for the only penalties provided are either death or imprisonment, penalties incapable of execution in the manner prescribed by law. Yet the language of the statute relative to the homicide of murder is framed as follows:
From what has already been stated, it seems certain that the word "person" as used in the degrees of murder, and lying within the definition of homicide, means a human being.
Aside from what we have heretofore stated, the intent of the legislature is to be found in the penalty prescribed for the crime of involuntary manslaughter.
It, therefore, seems to us quite clear that the legislature in enacting into law the common-law definition of homicide, although dividing it into degrees of murder and manslaughter, was considering only human derelictions from required normal behavior. The word "person" in the involuntary manslaughter statute, *508 in our opinion, when considered in context, cannot, therefore, be construed to include corporations.
Although the demurrer raises other questions relative to the sufficiency of the indictment, since a corporation cannot be indicted for involuntary manslaughter, it would be a useless gesture on our part to consider them.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
[1]  ORS 163.040 Manslaughter generally. (1) Any person who, without malice express or implied, without deliberation, and upon a sudden heat of passion caused by a provocation apparently sufficient to make the passion irresistible, voluntarily kills another, is guilty of manslaughter.

(2) Any person who, in the commission of any unlawful act, or a lawful act wthout due caution or circumspection, involuntarily kills another, is guilty of manslaughter. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the killing of any person where the proximate cause of such killing is an act or omission defined as negligent homicide in ORS 163.091.
(3) Every killing of a human being by the act, procurement or culpable negligence of another, when the killing is not murder in the first or second degree, or is not justifiable or excusable or negligent homicide as provided in ORS 163.091, is manslaughter.
[2]  ORS 163.080 Penalty for manslaughter. Every person convicted of manslaughter shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not more than 15 years and by a fine not exceeding $5,000.