From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Benfield

Oregon Court of Appeals
Aug 3, 1981
53 Or. App. 355 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)

Opinion

No. 79-09-33288, CA 18469

Submitted on record and briefs June 22, 1981

Judgment affirmed; sentence modified August 3, 1981

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

Irving M. Steinbock, Judge.

Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, and J. Marvin Kuhn, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Salem, filed the brief for appellant.

Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, William F. Gary, Solicitor General, and Stephen F. Peifer, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Thornton and Van Hoomissen, Judges.


RICHARDSON, P. J.

Judgment affirmed; sentence modified.


Defendant was convicted of murder, ORS 163.115(1)(a), felony murder, ORS 163.115(1)(b) and robbery in the first degree, ORS 164.415. All three charges arose out of a single incident wherein the victim was killed during a robbery. The court merged all three convictions and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a 25-year minimum term of incarceration pursuant to ORS 163.115(5). Defendant appeals, contending that a photograph of the victim was irrelevant and prejudicial and that the 25-year minimum sentence was excessive and unconstitutional.

In discussing the two assignments of error it is unnecessary to detail completely the facts of this criminal episode. The victim was shot five times with a small caliber weapon. The photograph objected to was identified by a witness who discovered the body. She testified the photograph depicted the victim as she found him, reclining in a chair with a visible gunshot wound in his head. Defendant's counsel, in his opening statement, said defendant was not contesting the identity of the victim or the fact he died by criminal means. Defendant argues that because the identity of the victim and the criminal means of his death were not contested, the photograph was irrelevant and, because of its gruesome nature, was prejudicial. The trial court overruled defendant's objections and admitted the photograph. For the same reasons expressed in State v. Reams, 47 Or. App. 907, 616 P.2d 498 (1980), rev allowed 291 Or. 309 (1981), we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photograph. Defendant's second assignment of error challenging imposition of a 25-year minimum sentence pursuant to ORS 163.115(5) is well taken. State v. Shumway, 291 Or. 153, 630 P.2d 796 (1981).

The conviction and sentence to the Corrections Division for the rest of defendant's natural life is affirmed. The 25-year minimum sentence imposed is vacated.

Judgment affirmed; sentence modified.


Summaries of

State v. Benfield

Oregon Court of Appeals
Aug 3, 1981
53 Or. App. 355 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)
Case details for

State v. Benfield

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. STEVEN CRAIG BENFIELD, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Aug 3, 1981

Citations

53 Or. App. 355 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)
632 P.2d 26

Citing Cases

State v. Jackson

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to exclude the photographs from evidence. State v.…

COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS v. SAIMON

See People v. Young, 710 P.2d 1140 (Colo.App. 1985) (Photos which depicted interior of house in which…