Opinion

State v. Woolard

  • 259 Or. 232
  • 484 P.2d 314
Court
Oregon Supreme Court
Filed
Apr 29, 1971
Status
Published
Author
Howell
On the bench
O'Connell, Denecke, McAllister, Bryson, Howell
Cited by
80 cases

only one sentence for burglary followed by larceny

How later courts described this case

  • only one sentence for burglary followed by larceny

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

*241 HOWELL, J.,

dissenting.

The "burglary statute, OES 164.230, does not require that the breaking and entering be made with the intent to commit any specific crime. The accused could have the intent to commit one or several crimes at the time. In my opinion, the breaking and entering with the intent to commit a crime — in other words, the burglary — and the subsequent crime committed, whether it be larceny, rape or assault, are entirely separate and distinct criminal acts involving different elements. I see no reason, under these circumstances, why the accused should not he convicted and sentenced for both crimes.

Bryson, J., joins in this dissent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.