Court Opinion

ID: 9537829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:25:22.717128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:03.933630
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
*341Gary D. Gortmaker, District Attorney, Salem, for petition.
No appearance contra.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Foley and Thornton, Judges.
FOLEY, J.,
on petition for rehearing.
Petitioner contends that the evidence of attempted burglary was:
“The defendant’s companion tried and shook the rear door * if * after customers who were in the tavern had departed [citing pages in the transcript] * *
There was, in fact, no evidence as to who rattled the *342rear door, which occurred, so the state’s witness swore, only five minutes after the proprietor had let six or eight customers out. The proprietor made no investigation of the noise. Ten more minutes elapsed before he left the establishment, and it was at that time that defendant’s companion was seen at the rear of the tavern.
Where, as here, there is every likelihood that the defendant and his companion intended to burglarize the tavern, the temptation is strong to contrive a way to support the conviction. It is our obligation, however, to apply the same standards to all. An attempted burglary must contain all of the elements of the substantive crime except the consummation of it. It was necessary for the state to prove that defendant attempted to break and enter the building. We held that the door-rattling by a person or persons unknown, five minutes after six or eight bar patrons had been discharged onto the parking lot adjacent to the tavern, with no other noise or activity by way of furtherance of the alleged attempt to burglarize occurring for ten minutes afterward, would not reasonably support an inference that the original door-rattling was the commencement of an attempted breaking and entering by defendant.
Petitioner also states:
“The owner/bartender testified using a diagram. * * *” (Emphasis supplied.)
It is true that a diagram was used at the trial. It apparently was put on a blackboard because the transcript at one point shows the witness “(Going to board).” In any event, the diagram was not made an exhibit in the case, was not a part of the record and *343the testimony concerning it was all hut useless on review. For example:
“Q [Prosecutor] * * * I have drawn a diagram here * * *.
* « * #
“Q By the way, since I talked to you this morning I have changed the directions.
“A * * * [T]his is the main entrance here, hut there is also a door back here with a storage room and an open area into the storage room. A window here, a window here, and here, but here is the serving tap * * *.
a* * # * *
“A This is just an open area with kind of a passageway through here. That is open all the time, storing empty beer cases and what have you.”
It was the prosecutor’s responsibility to see that the diagram was introduced in evidence and preserved for review in the appellate court. He cannot now charge this court with his error.
Rehearing denied.