Court Opinion

ID: 9604291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:18:00.426037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:19.799205
License: Public Domain

FORT, J.,
specially concurring.
*640Prior to the portion set out in the court’s opinion, the fourth count of the indictment states:
“COUNT IV.
“Further, for and as a part of the same acts and transactions alleged and hereinabove set forth in Counts I, II and III of this indictment and connected therewith, the said * *
There then follows the remainder of Count IV of the indictment as set forth in the court’s opinion.
Together, the first three counts contained express allegations of fact relating to the purchase by the defendants of a described building, particulars concerning the purchase by the defendants of insurance upon both the building and the personal property therein, and the willful and felonious burning of the insured property by the defendants on a described date preceding the filing by the defendants of the proof of loss described in Count IV, in addition to the facts alleged in the portion of Count IV set forth in the majority opinion.
The indictment was comprised of all four counts at the time the demurrer was filed and overruled.
Prior to submission of the cause to the jury the court withdrew from its consideration each of the first three counts. The fourth count was submitted to the jury and the defendant convicted thereof.
Thereafter defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment which included the demurrer based on the ground the facts stated failed to constitute a crime. The trial court allowed the motion in part on the ground that Count IV “fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a crime.”
*641In determining whether or not a multiple-count indictment alleges in any one count facts sufficient to constitute the crime charged:
“* * * [I]t is a well settled rule that, to save repetition, one count may by proper reference incorporate the allegations more fully set out in another count * * 42 CJS 1083, Indictments and Informations § 154.
Refusal by the court to submit the first three counts of the indictment did not work an amendment or alteration therein. Salinger v. United States, 272 US 542, 47 S Ct 173, 71 L Ed 398 (1926), considered a claim that refusal to submit certain counts of a multiple-count indictment effected a change in the indictment. The court there said:
“* * * The indictment was not amended, either actually or in legal effect. It remained just as it was returned by the grand jury, and the trial was on the charge preferred in it and not on a modified charge. After the evidence was put in, the accused, believing that part of the charge had no support in the evidence, requested that that part be withdrawn from the jury; and the court acceded to the request when the final instructions were given. The scheme to defraud as set forth in the indictment was manifold in that it comprehended several relatively distinct plans for fleecing intended victims. What the court withdrew from the jury was all of these plans but one. Thus the court ruled that the evidence while tending to sustain the charge as respects one of the plans did not give it any support as respects the others. Whether this was right or wrong — as to which we intimate no opinion — it did not work an amendment of the indictment * * 272 US at 548-49.
ORS 132.520 (2), 132.530 and 132.540 (1) (f) set forth the standards an indictment must meet.
*642In my view the indictment here, when considered in its entirety, does set forth facts sufficient to constitute the crime charged. I do not therefore reach the question whether the portion of Count IV set forth in the majority’s opinion, standing alone, sets forth facts sufficient to constitute a crime.
I concur in the result.