# Petition for a Writ of Certiorari — Murphy v. Oregon > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_0368%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1970 - **Citation:** 400 U.S. 944 ## Text "LIBRARY. SURREME-COURT, U. s. a San rte of the ti States ‘OCTOBER TERM, ie FG wot O2 ee ‘DANIEL P. MURPHY, Petitioner coed a | ae ae | STATE oF OREGON, Respondent "PETITION FOR A WRIT OF. CERTIORARI TO THE te ee _ SUPREME COURT OF OREGON 7 * Portland, Oregon 97204, Counsel for Petitioner. _ Oscar D. Howtetr, . 4710 S.E. Long Street, ee ~ Portland, Oregon 97206, “of a for Petitioner. ; oN . ‘ % 3 : .) ° i : : J) Se cneianiegeal > a : : ' : . - ie . a . : ss iy i y Pa Poe @ . cee ° . . ve eden et ete . ° eo. . ‘ - - ” - , . ‘ ‘ —— Sar cy i a . - . ” . ’ . . ‘ e. ° . ’ ° oa a Sn a te 6» INDEX OF PEWITION — M . , Page Opinion Below ............ vances oP a SA a ee TI oon hon ak eaters Paes yee i Questions Presented ............. NAAR ENTS PMA AS 2 | United States Constitutional Provisions. Involved Su areye 2 Statement of the Case... ... eT See errr rt. Irene e be 5 AS Facts on Motion to Suppress |................-... Sor . 55; _ Reasons for Granting the Writ .. rs orn s Doras arte 7: Ame oss ae ek ee a ek epee i Conclusion ...... sce eens eee en on ae eeee ieee a Appendix sein aaa Kec ree ee eee Pr eee ee 11/ ~, Opinion Oregon Court of Appeals Q., ara een a ae Pretrial Motion to Suppress in Circuit Court........... 20 Order of-Circuit Court on Motier to eae Cheese . 21° Preservation in Circuit Court on Trial ees rete |S Appellant’ s Opening Brief—Questions ree vesbie tntacéstirades. «comes OEE CE ee hee eee 23 Judgment of Affirmance ...................% Sare 2 24 _-Order Denying Rehearing. ..... Pore oy eee ee Ness. -: oe Order. Denying Review Pi ew one ese en ae 26 _ INDEX OF AUTHORITIES : Cases , ef i oe / Page Chambers v. Maroney, 399 us 2 (1970)... a ov oe Srey a Davis v. Mississippi, 394 US 721 (1969) . ae ee . Griffin v. California, 380 US 609 (1965) : we fl. De Ned 8 Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 US 294 ( 1967) . eet Pe i McDonald v. US, 335 US 451 (i968) .....2.... Grek SE as a i Morales v. New York, 396 US 102 (1969) .......... RR ees oa Peters v. New York, 392 US 40 (1967) ....... aa Ne Ay eee —— _ INDEX OF AUTHORITIES - _. Continued | — ; a. : aP Sanne Conmennd : : Page : Shediesiebiae v. Calitomnia, _ 384 US 157 A a 7 Simmons ¥. US, 390 US 377 (1968) ."......... hen Rte oa Vale v. Louisiana, 399 US-30 (1970) . 0... 20.0. case ak , » US v. DiRe, 332 US 581 (1948) ..... 6. ae Constitutional and Statutory Provisions ies: ee ose Pages Fourth Amendment;. United States Constitution ...... 2, 4, 8 Fifth Amendment, United States Constitution ........... 2,8 Sixth Amendment, United States Constitution ee ne 3,8 _ Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, United States. Constitution Pas ewe biaks ets wad ooo ~ “eee ag © . # 4 ae ee - - Suge Court of the ite States . OCTOBER TERM, 1970 .. No. _: RENIN habe rm F DANIEL P. MURPHY, Petitioner Vv. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent. ' PETITION FOR A WRIT. OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON The petitioner, Daniel P. Murphy, respectfully prays that a wyfit of certiorari issué to review the judgment and opinion of the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon entered in this proceeding on March. 12, 1970. OPINION. BELOW The opinion of the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon i is reported. at Or App 90 Adv Sh 679, 465 P2d 900. (1970). No opinions were rendered ‘by the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, which was the trial court, or: by the Supreme: Court of the State of Oregon ae: denying cecrehonary review. | , . - JURISDICTION eee The judgment of the Court of Appeals of the State _ of Oregon was entered on*March 12, 1970. A timely : petition for rehearing was denied on April 22, 1970. A timely petition for. review by the. Supreme Court of | ae > . ‘ e es Oregon-was denied on Jaume 127), a = netTinon for _ certiorari was fled within -@) fers .at tha: date” This’ Court's jurisdiction = t umme"-2 -* LISC § 1357 +) ee rr aes 5 eatin Ghar Questions Presented ee ty a i Whether the’ sear: 22 Gi Jecitinne:'s ‘likened bd = search of an aut omobile. b> Seed a thar t the sean 8! * - a house, allowing g a searce ag¢ Secure or probabie cause, Peat without, a warrant. w: ‘chour tus consen: and Mot} -inei-. dent. to a lawful arrest” © Cee a eae ona SS Beek 2 Whether there ormwhs* ais far pat ice (off cers : ‘to, ae and search pemm pms oT naj - unde: > arrest and without his consent, or 4 carmuny ant E seize material for /._ investigative dete emmin aca ai the rhievance ofthe ma-/ .v terial seized. es Ss ae 4h: | : 3. Whether th prude omnes jor auch search may ; ye based at least np ‘part nt mecfhoner’s mvoking the | =: privilege against self-inerrnmucsar- ant im refusifie. to : 2 '. consent to such searc# ami sezurs o> tos “nol veraph ees examination upon ddvice of mune] es ene ees % “ United States Gonsn-eneme: eourssenr: invaives : ae 7 : ‘ . - . " i — —-. ——— _->~ . é or ; ® ere AMEN wa ee * oe et eae, Qo > ay a ~ _ = % pre. Ps) 7 LTs7 - + ¥P> TT? he ———_ ~ >> a “ eCurii + J @ é reser a ua rie = a nO _ ce ativen . : am AMEX NONMENT | WF her prosecuhorm 7 he Ps presentment or iR- “ dictment: dotible cengurr. -scK-in —rmimition: duc . . * process: compensation jor property taken for pub- /“use. No person shall be held-to answer for a cap- ‘ital, or otherwise infamous crime,-unless on-a pre- -sentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life _ or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case _ to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of _ life; liberty, or property, without due process of law: . _ * nor shall ‘private property be taken for public use, i without just compensation... _» AMENDMENT VI .. Rishts of accused. in eriminal prosecutions, In:. _ ‘all criminal prosecutions,: the accused shall enjoy | . the-right to a’speedy ‘and public trial, by an im- partial jury of the’ State and district wherein the ~ ‘crime shall have been committed, which district } ‘shall have been previously ascertained by law, and \. against him; to have compulsory process for obtain- . ance of Counsel for his defence. , ' . oaeas AMENDMENT: XIV. —* Section 1. Citizenship; privileges and immuni: ~ tres: due process; equal. protection. All persons born or natural:zed in the United States, and subject to ing witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assist-- ' to -be informed of the nature and cause of the , accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses | the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens-of the United States and of the State wherein they: reside. No “State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any \ ' .person of life, liberty, or property, without due - “process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ; : STATEMENT OF THE CASE Petitioner was convicted of murdering his wife and sentenoed to 15 years imprisonment. Cir. Ct. Record.. A significant’ piece of evidence.against him was material obtained by police officers by scraping under his nails . (Tr 311). which material was later identified as skin cells, blood cells and white cotton fibre - 335) and admitted in eyidence against him: (Tr 344). | This scraping was done without a warrant while peti- tioner was not under arrest but was being detained, and ~ was done over ‘his objection upon legal advice by his attorney who was present. : : A pre-trial motion to suspress this evidence for viola- ; tion of the Fourth Amendment to:the United States Constitution was filed’in the trial court ‘(Appendix p. 20) and evidence.taken thereon (Tr 28-74), at the con- clusion of which the trial court denied the motion to suppress (Appendix p. 21). At the time of offering the material in evidence upon the trial, the pre-trial motion was preserved (Appendix p. 22): . . The lawfulness of this search and seizure under the United States Constitution was presented to and de- - termined on the merits by the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon adversely to petitioner (Appendix p. 11) and the Supreme Court of Oregon denied the. peti- .tion requesting its discretionary review of the deter-— mination of the Court of Appeals (Appellate Record, -Appendix p. 26). ~~ - 9] FACTS ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS . On August. 25th, 1967, city of' Portland d hecthies | Prescott Hutchens and William Prunk were ‘a signed to investigate the murder of Doris Murphy. They ar- rived at the Murphy home shortly after 8:00 A.M. (Tr 98). Visually they could see throat lacerations and abrasions and it appeared that she was strangled (Tr 29, 35 and 54). Deceased was lying on her back in bed and the bed was perfectly made up. There were no signs of robbery (Tr 35). The detectives talked to the son of the deceased and defendant and learned that defendant - had been expected home the night’ before on the 24th of August (Tr 45, 47): Also by calling Camp Sherman and talking there to a Mark Jones they learned that defendant had left there the night before to go to Port- land (Tr 46). -. Inaddi didn they hoticed that Pat Murphy, dhe son, — . bit his fingernails and it was impossible to scrape ‘them . 41).” . ~ By holding efemi imme enongh to teko Rneor “nail ses anlge on cmt. ite Hetactivas did nor arrest ‘the _ defendant i in the strict SESE the word. An arrest in its strict sense is s the taste 2 2 2 WeTSon mto custadv for the: commission of an oferse as the mrsiude to proseculing 7 See him for it. Terry v. Otte. ARD-US 1.88.5 Cr 1868 OL Ed 24-889 (1968). Ic Saluws ‘The? the state cannot rr on the rile that “The TUE Te ‘pyaen nan te the demand | for a search warrant & mf cnutse. the seatth made as an incident of a lawanl ams” State «+ Chinn. 231 OE. ’ 259, 373 P2d 392-1. 9&2). I ES cule. however. & not. de terminative-of the case i> mahs tor. whije’th¢d incident- _to-arrest exception is “mente!” it does not follow that: it is exclusive. wx * & M terms cf se-st rns person arrested fo evidence of the crume fir vtuch he & seize . Perhaps this is the reason that it mut: sass courts have upheld warrantless searches woe gums moar tc arrest by chat- acterizing the seaghes, as neue: tr arrest.” | “Search before arresc-s mov umeommon in ctirten: practice. In some smscames: the-search pregede: the formal -announ emer ‘T, S°TESt Necause it is. neces- sary for the officer totem guciziv for his own protec- tion. In many. instucess, however. no formal. an- s ean 7 - ; “¥ eer en Gee : i eee ek! ee >: nguncement is made because the officer knows that. the person will not actually be taken to the station - unless the search proves to be fruitful. That is, in ~_ those Gases where the defendant might be arrested because of reasonable grounds to-believe-he_pres~ ~~ i sently possesses contraband, the common sense se- | _ quence—as far as the police are concerned—is search followed by arrest. only if contraband is found; as opposed to arrest, search, and then release if nothing is found. ~ ' “Tn these and wae cases, the better view is that: the search is not unlawful merely because it. pre- . cedes the arrest. Such is the California eae, - which has been explained as follows: _ “*Thus, if the officer is entitled to make an ar- rest on the basis of information availahle to him be- | ‘fore he searches, and as an incident to that arrest is entitled to make a reasonable search of the’ person _ arrested and the place where he is arrested, there is: , nothing unreasonable in his conduct if he makes the search before instéad of after the arrest. In fact, if. the pearson searched is innocent and the search con- vinees the officer that his reasonable belief to the. contrary is erroneous, it is to the advantage of the _pearson searched ‘not to be arrested. On the other | hand, if he is not innocent or the search doés not establish his innocence, the security of. his person, house, papers, or effects suffers no more from a search . preceding: his arrest ‘than it would from’ the same . search following it.’ 4° ck * Ok * % ' » "284 People N, Simon, 45 Cal. 2d 645, 648, .290 P.2d 531, 533 ( 1955) .” LaFave, Search and. Seizure ®- °° £ » Supra, at 303. 16 The majority of the Oregon Supreme Court appar- ently is of the same mind as the California court in People v. Simon, 45 Cal 2d 645, 290 P2d 531 (1955). In State v. Elk, 249 Or 614, 439 P2d 1011 (1968)., those who concurred in the prevailing opinion characterized as in- | cident to arrest a car search which occurred 20 to 25 ° minutes prior to arrest and 200 to 250 yards away. The search was upheld on the basis of a more realistic, work- able and theoretically sound rationale in‘two concurring opinions which represented the views of four concurring . justices. While the two concurring opinions were not in complete agreement on all of the issues of that case they shated ‘the same view on the issue we are here consider- ing. The view upon which the four concurring ‘justices agreed is set forth in that portion of Mr. Justice O’Con- nell’s opinion which states: ‘ : | ; “The majority opinion upholds the search in the present case on the ground that it was incident to the arrest. This is erroneous. A search and seizure cannot be an ‘incident’ of an arrest which took place at a later time. It is not made any the more so by assertions that ‘the. arrest and search were part of one uninterrupted transaction’ or that the search is ‘not remote in time or place from the site of the arrest.’ | . ae _ “However, the search and seizure in-the present case can be upheld upon another ground. The infor- mation Officér Rothermel had _ received, : together with his observations before lifting the trunk lid, was . sufficient to give him probable cause to believe that the stolen gun was in the trunk. Upon the basis. of this information, there would have been no difficulty in obtaining a search warrant. But to obtain a war- rant it would have been necessary for Rothermel to leave the car and if he left it he could not know when 17 _ the person who drove the car there would return and drive it away together with the evidence in it. Roth- * ermel had been informed that those who had driven - up in the car were in the immediate vicinity. Because of the risk of losing the evidence if a warrant were ' sought, it was impracticable to obtain a warrant. Un- der these circumstances a search of the trunk was reasonable.” State v. Elk, supra, at 624-25. “If the police had probable cause to search the defen- dant and probable cause to believe that it was necessary that they search him without taking the time to first ob- tain a search warrant, their right to search him immedi- ately was hot deféated by the'r failure to exercise their right to arrest him. “There is no constitutional right to be arrested,” Hoffa v. United States, 385 US 293, 87 S Ct. 408, 17 L Ed 2d 374, reh den 386 US 940 (1966). To hold otherwise would be to require the police to arrest so as to search incident to that arrest. The court should not , _ require greater invasion of privacy where lesser invasion would satisfy the public purpose. Situations: exist where arrest would be unwise despite the circumstances of _ probable cause. Cf. Hoffa v. United States, supra. While the existence of probable cause authorizes state seizure by way of (1)- arrest, and (2) search to prevent destruc- tion of evidence (see State v. Chinn, supra, at 267), there appears no reason to require the police to do both or neither. If the public safety is satisfied by the Jesserin- ~ vasion of defendant’s privacy, by search alone, the law should not encourage, or indeed require, the police to arrest prematurely. in order to justify a search already Justified by prior probable. cause. 3 We hold that the right of the police’to search without a warrant 1s a right not solely dependent upon a prior or contemporaneous arrest. The relevant issue is not 18 whether the defend pint was arrested, but whether the warrantless search.was based on probable cause. The questions basic to this determination are: (1) Did the police have probable cause to believe that a search of the defendant’s person would result in the finding of evidence of homicide? (2) Did‘the police have probable cause to believe that if the search were not made immediately with- out taking the time to seek and obtain a warrant the evidence might well be lost? “& Sta State v. Keith, Or App, — Or Adv Sh —, — Or —, — —, handed down by this court March 5, 1970. The facts in the case at hand justified the warrantless search. At the time the police took the fingernail scrap- ings they had probable cause to believe that the uefen- dant was guilty of strangling his wife. They did not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but: they did have what they needed, i.e., reasonable ground for suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in them- selves to warrant a cautious man in the belief. State v. ‘Keith, supra. One of the detectives who had had previous experience _ ‘in this type of homicide knew that throat lacerations " were frequently produced by fingernails and that evi- dence in the form of blood, skin and fibers could some- times be found under the fingernails of assailants in such cases. At the time tie detectives took the acragangs they knew: The bedroom in which the wife was found dead * showed no signs of disturbance, which fact tended to _ indicate a killer known to the victim but rather than to a burglar or other stranger. 19 The decedent’s son, the only other person in the. house that night, did not have fingernails which could have made the lacerations observed oni the vic- tim’s throat. ve The defendant and his deceased wife hadh.had a stormy marriage and did not get along well: _ The defendant had, in fact, been at his home on the night of the murder. He left and drove back to - central Oregon claiming that he did-not enter the house or see his wife. He volunteered a great deal of information without being asked, yet expressed no’ concern or curiosity about his wife’s fate. - ; Unless the defendant were bound, manacled, guarded or by some other means placed in a position where he could not clip his fingernails, scrape the nails of one hand with the nails of another, put his fingers in his © mouth or go to the lavatory from the time the police .asked him for permission.to take fingernail scrapings until the time that they sought and obtained a warrant, © it was entirely likely that the evidence would have been destroyed in the. interim. Proper application of the Fourth Amendment does not require such extremes. The search ci the defendant did not violate his constitutional rights t8 freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. _ Affirmed. - . 20 PRETRIAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS IN CIRCUIT COURT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH ~ | THESTATEOF OREGON, ) No.C-49322 | Ey, Plaintiff,) Morion to - | We _ ) Suppress DANIEL P. MURPHY, - ) AND © _» Defendant,) - EXcLupe Comes now the defendant, DANIEL P. MURPHY, by and through his attorney of record, Gordon M. MacLaren, and moves the Court for an.Order suppress-.- ing and excluding the evidence obtained as a result of ' the illegal search and seizure of defendant’s person for the following reasons, one or more than one concurring, to-wit: Jarl > ;, | i 1) That the officer effecting the search of the defen- dant’s person failed to secure a search warrant author- izing the search of the defendant’s person. . 2) At the time of the search of defendant’s person, he was not under arrest for any crime, nor did he. give his consent for any search. 3) That in fact the defendant, by and through his — attorney, made a plain and unequivocal objection to the said’search, but that the seaich was conducted over these objections, by members of the Portland Police Bureau. ai ; ite ete 4), That the search. of the defendant was conducted through the mode and means of inserting a knife blade underneath defendant’s fingernails and obtaining there- from certain items of fingernail scrapings which said items of fingernail scrapings were later turned over to. - the Portland Police Bureau Crime Laboratory for analysis. ec | 21 WHEREFORE, defendant prays that the said ev.- dence be suppressed and held by the Court tobe inad-. missible in.this cause-against this defendant. _ MacLaren & McEacuern By Gorpon’ MacLarEN Of Attorneys for Defendant - In argument for. the instant motion, attorney for de-.- fendant will rely, in part, upon the following points of authority. : U. S. Constitution, Amendment IV: . Oregon Constitution, Article ee State v. Krogness, 238 Or 135. ORDER OF CIRCUIT COURT ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS - THE COURT: Before we proceed further with this trial, as I indicated to you yesterday, I would take this motion, defendant’s motion, under submission. And I 4 have studied it and tonsidered the argument and testi- , mony presented by respective counsel on your motion, Mr. MacLaren, to suppress, and feel that the motion ‘should not be allowed. — 3 - Now, I will agree with you that the scraping of the © defendant’s fingernails, as far as this Court is concerned, for evidence, was a search within the meaning of. the search and seizure law. Of course, that leaves the cru-. cial question of whether or not the search was a-reason- able and valid one. . aa le You will recall that yesterday I indicated that I felt quite strongly that probable cause existed, in this case, for the search. And, add to that, since you finished argu- _ ing yesterday; I further feel that, and I think I indi- cated, the exigencies of-the situation, or the circum- a. stances, including the purpose of the search, the manner ‘in which ‘it was made, the character of the evidence seized, and the nature and importance ‘of the crime com- . mitted, all add to the reasonableness of the search. | And I further feel that State versus Ramon, cited to the Court by the District Attorney ‘yesterday, 85. Ad- vance Sheets 375, support my finding. And you will re- call in that case the Court said that: . cae “It is not answer to say that the police could have obtained a search warrant for the relevant test is not whether it is reasonable to procure a search warrant, but whether the search was réasonable.” | And, for these reasons, the Court is hereby denying the motion. So we'll proceed with the trial. All right (Tr pp 73, 74). ° - | : .-— PRESERVATION IN CIRCUIT COURT ON TRIAL (Whereupon STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 26 was re- ceived into evidence) (Tr 333). * % a * * “MR. MacLAREN: For the purposes of the—pro- tecting the defendant’s record here, it is agreed between counsel for the State, Mr. O’Dell, and myself, as counsel for the defendant, in the presence of the Court, by. de- - fendant’s failure to object to the introduction of State’s Exhibit, 23, which — and 25 — MR. O’DELL: 6; excuse me, excuse me. Twenty-’ . SIX. ; MR. MacLAREN: Correction: 26 — which exhibits contained the fingernail ‘scrapings obtained from de- fendant, by not objecting, the defendant did not waive his prior objection, which was in the form of the motion 23° to suppress, which the Court has ruled on, and over- ruled. Be Me ae | __. THE COURT: That’s right; that’s right. By failing. to object, you didn’t waive any of your rights. And let the record "** Cie ae. 7 Deen APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF _ QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN COURT OF APPEALS © | (1) Is a search of one’s person by law enforcement | authorities made without consent, without search war- _ rant and not incident to lawful arrest a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and of Article I, $9, Oregon Constitution. (2) . May law enforcement authorities effect a search. of a suspect to murder for evidence connecting him to _ the crime solely on a basis of “probable cause” without arrest or search warrant or by his consent. - (3) Under the circumstances present in the instant case was the search of defendant for the purpose of ob- taining finger nail scrapings a violation of his rights un- der the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and of Section 9, Article I, Oregon Consti- tution. @ JUDGMENT OF AFFIRMANCE _ BE IT REMEMBERED that in the: COURT OF ‘APPEALS of the State of Oregon, in the city of Salem, on this THURSDAY, the 12th day of MARCH, 1970, | _ the following proceedings were had: i oe . STATEOFOREGON, __i=+»+ : Respandent ) Appeal from V. | fa ) MULTNOMAH ee oa te? ~ ) . County DANIEL PAUL-MURPHY, ) No. C-49322_ A ppellant ) This cause on January 21, 1970, having been duly argued and submitted upon and concerning all ques- tions arising upon the record and then reserved for . _ further consideration, and the court having fully con-. . _ Sidered all said questions as well as- suggestions of coun- sel in their argument and briefs finds.there is not error as alleged. | Reet a, > SF THEREFORE IS.CON SIDERED, ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the coirt below rendered and entered in this cause be and the same here- by is in all things affirmed. = 28 3 ° | -. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that respondent have and recover of and from appellant its costs and dis- - bursements in this court taxed at'$15.00. _IT,FURTHER IS ORDERED that this cause: be | remanded to the court below from which the appeal was taken with directions to enter judgment in accordance herewith, e - | 95 a_st tl ORDER DENYING REHEARING BE IT REMEMBERED that in the COURT OF APPEALS of the State of Oregon, in the city of Salem, on this WEDNESDAY, the 22nd day of APRIL, 1970, the following procéedings were had: a -STATEOFOREGON, ___) i. 5 ) ? . Respondent ) - Appeal from v. eo ) MULTNOMAH ) -Count DANIEL PAULMURPHY, ) oe. | Abueltans °) The court having duly considered appellant’s peti- tion for rehearing in the above entitled case, and the court being fully advised therein, | IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that said petition be and the same is hereby denied. - aria 4 BE IT REMEMBERED chet at 2 re ilar term oi the. SU PREME COURT of the State ai Oregon begin : and. held at. the COUITIWE on Ine city of Salem on- the - , - first Monday: the 2nd dss “of MARCH. 1970, WHERE. UPON on this TL ‘ESDAY. the 2ath dav of JVNE. 1970, the same being the £2ni tudicial dav o% said term. when the tollowing Deen were had: . STATE OF OREGON” Appeal! froni CULT. NOMAH County af DANIEL PAUL MURPHY * The court. having duiv wumsageec anneliant's Pe. tion for Review. ard the ano hens tully advised therein: | _ IT HEREBY IS ORDERED tha: said ‘petition be and the s same hereby is demand .- ? r F - & oS a am ‘- --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_0368%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.