State v. Flower

2 Citing cases

  1. State v. Knight

    160 Or. App. 395 (Or. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding that the defendant's actions constituted two discrete decisions to commit separate entries and therefore to commit two separate burglaries

    The fact that criminal charges are consolidated for trial does not necessarily mean that they arise from a single criminal episode. State v. Flower, 128 Or. App. 83, 86-87, 874 P.2d 1359, rev den 319 Or. 572 (1994). In this case, defendant entered the victim's residence at 8 a.m. on July 30, using an unlocked door. He left shortly thereafter, returned to the location where his car had broken down and worked on the car.

  2. State v. Spencer

    895 P.2d 792 (Or. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 1 times
    Factoring and theft charges based on offenses committed using different credit cards at different times involving different merchants and different accomplices not part of same criminal episode

    The state's motion to consolidate did not allege that the offenses were part of the same act or transaction and the state did not proceed under that theory. State v. Flower, 128 Or. App. 83, 86, 874 P.2d 1359, rev den 319 Or. 572 (1994). Rather, the state's motion was based on its contention that the charges were so factually interrelated that evidence of each crime would be admissible in a separate prosecution of the other crimes.