Legal Opinion

State v. Harris

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 26, 1967PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDenecke, J.

This is another appeal caused by Oregon’s outdated criminal statutes. ① We are required to draw a fine distinction between larceny and embezzlement because such a distinction was drawn by the Eighteenth Century English courts and incorporated into the Oregon statutes by Mathew Deady in Oregon’s first code. This distinction serves no purpose whatsoever in the Twentieth Century. Foley, Criminal Law — Larceny, Embezzlement, and False Pretenses — Need for a Comprehensive Theft Statute in Oregon, 41 Or L Rev 242 (1962).

The indictment charging defendant carried the notation ORS 164.310, the larceny…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. KeysOregon Supreme Court · 1966
  2. State v. TauscherOregon Supreme Court · 1961
  3. State v. ColemanOregon Supreme Court · 1926
  4. State v. ThompsonOregon Supreme Court · 1965

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. MedinaOregon Supreme Court · 2015
  2. State v. DosterOregon Supreme Court · 1967
  3. State v. FonteOregon Supreme Court · 2018
  4. State v. RobertsonNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1977
  5. State v. LewisOregon Supreme Court · 1967

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API