Court Opinion

ID: 9548594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:05:56.772674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:11.271413
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
LANGTRY, J.
In letters to the court and to his attorney, which have been received and considered with the petition *320for rehearing prepared and filed by the defendant’s attorney, the defendant has complained that the court did not consider Assignment of Error No. 4 in the defendant’s original brief on appeal. That assignment was considered. It was that:
“* * * [T]he Court erred in allowing the jury to consider the defendant’s guilt on both Counts I [rape] and II [contributing] after the.testimony established that the acts which were alleged to have constituted contributing to the delinquency of a minor were part of the same criminal conduct which resulted in the alleged sexual intercourse that constituted statutory rape.”
Defendant cited State v. Lee, 254 Or 295, 453 P2d 170, 459 P2d 1001 (April 1969), in support of this assignment. In oúr original opinion in this case, we did not favorably consider Assignment of Error No. 4 because the state conceded that the conviction under Count II of the indictment (contributing to the delinquency of a minor, .ORS 167.210) was erroneous. The contributing statute was held unconstitutional in State v. Hodges, 254 Or 21, 457 P2d 491 (July 1969). Inasmuch as the state had conceded that there must be a reversal on this ground, we considered Assignment of Error No.' 4 tó be moot.
The situation was the,same in State v. Lee, supra, cited by defendant. State v. Hodges, supra, was decided after the first, opinion in State v. Lee, supra, and after a rehearing had been granted. In a Per Curiam opinion on the rehearing, the Supreme Court withdrew its original opinion in State v. Lee, supra, and said:
“* * * , The conviction of the crime of rape is affirmed, andfbA éphvíétíoin óf the Prime‘of contributing to-the délihqtíeñcy oFa niinoí Is revised." *321State v. Lee, 254 Or 295, 459 P2d 1001 (October 22, 1969).
In the second Lee opinion, the court said that the issue that was going to be considered in the rehearing, when it was granted, had become moot by reason of State v. Hodges, supra. That issue in Lee was the same that was raised-in Assignment of Error No. 4 in this ease. Therefore, it is also moot in this case.
We have considered the other reasons for rehearing advanced by the defendant in his letters and also the formal petition for rehearing prepared by his attorney and find them without merit.
Rehearing denied.