From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kibble v. Baldwin

Oregon Court of Appeals
Sep 26, 1995
899 P.2d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 1995)

Opinion

CV 92-960; CA A82560

Argued March 13, 1995.

Submitted March 13, 1995. Reversed and remanded July 19, petition for review allowed September 26, 1995 ( 322 Or. 167) See later issue Oregon Reports.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Umatilla County.

Jack F. Olsen, Judge.

Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Theresa M. Kohlhoff filed the brief for respondent.

Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Leeson, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded.


The state seeks reversal of an order granting post-conviction relief. It argues that the post-conviction court erred in finding that petitioner received inadequate assistance of counsel. We reverse.

The post-conviction court based its decision on the fact that trial counsel did not pursue an extreme emotional disturbance (EED) defense to the charge of attempted murder. The court relied on State v. Carson, 292 Or. 451, 640 P.2d 586 (1982), which held that EED may be a defense to a charge of attempted murder. However, the statutory underpinnings of Carson have changed. The defendant in Carson was tried in 1979. In 1981, the legislature amended ORS 163.135; it now provides that EED is an affirmative defense to a charge of intentional murder and "does not constitute a defense to the prosecution for * * * any other crime." The Supreme Court has since held that "EED is a defense to the crime of intentional murder, and to no other crime." State v. Wille, 317 Or. 487, 492, 858 P.2d 128 (1993). Defendant here pleaded guilty to the charge of attempted murder in 1991, well after the amendment took place. Accordingly, the trial court erred in holding that petitioner's trial counsel was inadequate.

We do not mean to imply that, had EED been available as a defense, petitioner necessarily would have received inadquate assistance of counsel if the defense was not pursued.

Petitioner's other contentions are without merit.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Kibble v. Baldwin

Oregon Court of Appeals
Sep 26, 1995
899 P.2d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 1995)
Case details for

Kibble v. Baldwin

Case Details

Full title:PAUL EDWARD KIBBLE, Respondent, v. G.H. BALDWIN, Superintendent, Eastern…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Sep 26, 1995

Citations

899 P.2d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 1995)
899 P.2d 731

Citing Cases

Petersen v. Lampert

Under Oregon law, extreme emotional disturbance is not a defense to aggravated murder, thus petitioner cannot…

Kibble v. Baldwin

On review from the Court of Appeals. Appeal from Umatilla County Circuit Court, J.F. Olsen, Judge. 135 Or.…