From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Stookey

Oregon Supreme Court
May 16, 1969
454 P.2d 267 (Or. 1969)

Opinion

Argued March 7, Affirmed May 16, 1969

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County.

ROLAND K. RODMAN, Judge.

J. Marvin Kuhn, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.

Fred A. Hartstrom, Deputy District Attorney, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was John B. Leahy, District Attorney, Eugene.

Before McALLISTER, Presiding Justice, and O'CONNELL and DENECKE, Justices.


AFFIRMED.


The defendant was convicted of forcible rape and appeals.

The defendant took the victim and her sister, Rita, the defendant's ex-wife, against their will, in his car out into the woods where he had intercourse with the victim. Thereafter the victim and her sister escaped. About a week after the act the victim's sister received a letter from the defendant. The sole assignment of error is the trial court's ruling that this letter was admissible.

The letter reads as follows:

"Dear Rita,

"Rita I guess you know that my mind is gone. I have been trying to get ahold of you to take me to a Doc. But I haven't seen you. But ontill [sic] I see talk [to] you I won't give my self up and no matter how long you hide I will get to you in time. I know where you are and was there. I could have shot the hell out of the lot of you more than ones [sic] so don't ever think I can't get to you before the cops get me and I will if it comes to that. I don't want that to happen. I want you to take me to a Doc and I'll turn my self in if you want to help and get me out of the way that will be the only way you can do it.

"/s/ Harold"

The letter was admissible. The inference can be drawn from the letter that the defendant was hiding from the police. This is similar to evidence of flight which is relevant evidence. State v. Henderson, 182 Or. 147, 196, 184 P.2d 392, 186 P.2d 519 (1947). There was no evidence of any other possible criminal conduct for which the defendant was seeking to avoid arrest. The evidence is not rendered inadmissible because it contains other matters prejudicial to the defendant, such as his threats against his ex-wife. State v. Brown, 231 Or. 297, 300, 372 P.2d 779 (1962).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Stookey

Oregon Supreme Court
May 16, 1969
454 P.2d 267 (Or. 1969)
Case details for

State v. Stookey

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. HAROLD JEFFERSON STOOKEY, Appellant

Court:Oregon Supreme Court

Date published: May 16, 1969

Citations

454 P.2d 267 (Or. 1969)
454 P.2d 267

Citing Cases

State v. Payne

1980); State v. Collett, 542 S.W.2d 783 (Mo. 1976); Davis v. State, 171 Neb. 333, 106 N.W.2d 490, cert.…

State v. LeBrun

Of course flight from apprehension is the crucial concept; defendant need not be chased from the crime. Cf.,…