Court Opinion

ID: 9791741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:16:57.376672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:38.242569
License: Public Domain

FORT, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the court’s opinion except that I do not think the indictment sufficiently alleges facts to enable a person of common understanding to prepare to defend against the allegation that the parents failed and refused to secure and provide for their son “medical * * * care necessary for Ms physical well being, * * ® asa ° result * * * [ofwMchhe] died.”
*532It is not enough in charging a man with negligent homicide or manslaughter under OES 163.040 (2) simply to allege he drove negligently. He is entitled to know something more, i.e., did he drive too fast, run a stop sign, drive while drunk, etc.? State v. Davis, 207 Or 525, 296 P2d 240 (1956); State v. Wojahn, 204 Or 84, 282 P2d 675 (1955). As my brother Foley points out, if the state cannot tell him, it should say so.
Nowhere does the indictment say what medical care, which the defendants failed “to secure and to provide,” was necessary for the child’s well-being and the absence of which caused his death, nor does it identify within the life span of the child when this occurred. The mind boggles at the gamut of the experiences which this allegation might encompass.
Here the charge is essentially one of nonfeasance, not misfeasance. It is completely open-ended. 40 Am Jur 2d 498, Homicide § 222, states:
“The ordinary forms of indictments for homicide are not sufficient where the offense arises out of some negligence on the part of the accused. The indictment in such ease must be framed upon the particular facts of the ease. The duty which was neglected or improperly performed must be charged, and according to some authorities at least, the acts of the accused constituting the failure to perform, or the improper performance, and the facts and circxxmstances relied upon to show negligence, should be set forth * *
And at 40 CJS 1036, Homicide § 147, it states:
“Where the homicide is charged to have resulted from a xxegligent act or omission the indictment or information must be with certainty sufficient to put the accused on notice of the offense with which he is charged. The act or omission must be alleged and such facts and circum*533stances as are essential to show negligence, hut the duty violated, or the standard of care required, ordinarily need not be averred.”
See also, Homicide — Lack of Medical Attention, Annotation, 100 ALR2d 483 (1965). The indictment here in my view does not meet that test.
I believe the foregoing authorities accurately set forth the rule in Oregon in this class of case. See also, State v. Standard, 232 Or 333, 375 P2d 551 (1962), and State v. England, 220 Or 395, 349 P2d 668 (1960), each dealing with indictments under ORS 163.040 (2) charging involuntary manslaughter. Because here, by the addition of premeditation and malice to what is alleged to be a failure to discharge a duty with due care and circumspection, the charge becomes one of first degree murder, does not change the rules governing what must be plead.
Finally, the problem is here further complicated because there are two defendants charged, even though not alleged to have been acting jointly and in pursuance of a common intent. The sufficiency of an indictment sounding in nonfeasance, when tested by demurrer, must be examined from the standpoint of each, for each defendant is entitled to know what it is that he has failed to do.