From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Matischeck

Oregon Court of Appeals
May 5, 1975
21 Or. App. 300 (Or. Ct. App. 1975)

Opinion

No. 16-842

Submitted on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court April 24, 1975

Former opinion modified, affirmed May 5, 1975

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tillamook County.

J. S. BOHANNON, Judge.

Before SCHWAB, Chief Judge, and LANGTRY and FORT, Judges.


FORMER OPINION MODIFIED. AFFIRMED.


This case is again before us on remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of State v. Hammang, 271 Or. 749, 534 P.2d 501 (1975).

We adhere to our prior analysis of the prosecutorial-knowledge element of the double-jeopardy test of State v. Brown, 262 Or. 442, 497 P.2d 1191 (1972). However, the Supreme Court's Hammang decision establishes that the Brown rule does not bar subsequent trial on a charge arising from a single act or transaction when a former "prosecution" consisted only of a guilty plea. Factually, that is the situation in this case.

Former opinion modified. Affirmed.


I concur in the court's construction of the rule just announced in State v. Hammang, 271 Or. 749, 534 P.2d 501 (1975), as applied to this case, and thus concur in the result now announced affirming the ruling of the trial court.

I adhere, however, to the view expressed in my prior dissenting opinion in this case.


Summaries of

State v. Matischeck

Oregon Court of Appeals
May 5, 1975
21 Or. App. 300 (Or. Ct. App. 1975)
Case details for

State v. Matischeck

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. GORDON ROY MATISCHECK, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: May 5, 1975

Citations

21 Or. App. 300 (Or. Ct. App. 1975)
535 P.2d 102

Citing Cases

State v. Shaw

20 Or. App. 332, 336, 531 P.2d 737, modified on recons. , 21 Or. App. 300, 535 P.2d 102 (1975) (emphasis…