discussing “the commission of offenses against several victims in a single criminal act or episode, offenses which * * * span events of such diverse penological significance as the traffic offense that fortuitously results in the death of many * * *, and the calculated decision of a robber to empty not only the cash register but also the purses of the individual employees or guests of the establishment” (emphasis added)
How later courts described this case
- discussing “the commission of offenses against several victims in a single criminal act or episode, offenses which * * * span events of such diverse penological significance as the traffic offense that fortuitously results in the death of many * * *, and the calculated decision of a robber to empty not only the cash register but also the purses of the individual employees or guests of the establishment” (emphasis added)
- noting incomplete legislative direc- tion regarding possible “multiple consequences” of a “single criminal act”
- conviction for murder merges into conviction for aggravated murder
- drawing on ORS 131.515(2)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HOWELL, J.,
specially concurring.
I dissented in State v. Woolard, 259 Or 232 , 484 P2d 314 , 485 P2d 1194 (1971). It is obvious that the majority adheres to that decision. Any further expression of dissent would be an exercise in futility. I, therefore, concur in the result.