Court Opinion

ID: 9618959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:20:05.211348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:34.290420
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
*501Tyler Marshall, and Tamblyn, Bouneff, McLennan, Muller, Marshall & Hawkes, Portland, for petition.
Lee Johnson, Attorney General, John W. Osburn, Solicitor General, and Al J. Laue, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, for respondent.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Langtry and Port, Judges.
SCHWAB, C.J.
In our original opinion in this case the main question we considered was whether evidence that defendant lied to police investigating crimes committed by Douglas Wright was sufficient to create a jury question as to whether defendant was an accessory after the fact in that he had aided or concealed Wright within the meaning of ORS 161.230. We held that evidence of a lie which frustrates the investigation of the principal’s crime was sufficient to take such a ease to the jury.
On petition for rehearing defendant contends our holding, when applied to this record, requires reversal because there is no evidence from which the jury could have found that the lie did in some degree aid Wright by hindering his apprehension.
Our consideration of the briefs submitted on the petition for rehearing leads us to the conclusion that we incorrectly construed ORS 161.230 in so far as we held that a necessary element of the crime is that the act (here the lie) “frustrate” police investigation.
*502While the statutory language is not as precise as it might have been,① we do not believe it reasonable to interpret it as requiring that the state prove (1) what the police would have done had an act not happened, and (2) what the theoretical results of those theoretical activities would have been.
On the contrary, the only reasonable interpretation of the statute as to this question is that proof of an overt act (here the lie), coupled with proof of an unlawful intent (to aid or conceal) is sufficient to constitute the crime.② Surely if a person hands a wanted murderer an airline ticket for the purpose of flight the crime of aiding is complete even though both are apprehended five minutes later and the ticket is unused.
Our holding here is consistent with that in People v. Duty, 269 Cal App2d 97, 74 Cal Rptr 606 (1969), which is the closest case on the facts that we have discovered.
Petition for rehearing denied.

 ORS 161.230 has been superseded by ORS 162.325. Oregon Laws 1971, ch 743, section 207, pp 1932-33.

©As we pointed out in our original opinion the defendant concedes that there was evidence of unlawful intent.