# State v. Woolard

> Oregon Supreme Court · April 29, 1971 · 259 Or. 232

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551841

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. MILDRED JEAN WOOLARD, Petitioner
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 29, 1971
- **Citations:** 259 Or. 232; 484 P.2d 314
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Howell
- **Judges:** O'Connell, Denecke, McAllister, Bryson, Howell
- **Cited by:** 80 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551841

## Opinion text

*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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551841. Public record. Not legal advice.