Court Opinion

ID: 9558015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:01:42.352287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:05.894075
License: Public Domain

THORNTON, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result but do not agree with the statement that there was a 43-day overlap in the time frames involved in the two indictments. If I understand the facts here and the rule announced in State v. Combs, 3 Or App 260, 473 P2d 672 (1970), correctly, there was no overlap, and consequently no double jeopardy.
Secondly, I would not agree with the suggestion in the specially concurring opinion that the "same transaction” rule applies. In my view, so long as the new charge does not cover the period of nonsupport for which the defendant was tried and acquitted, the state is not precluded from bringing the new charge notwithstanding the acquittal.