State v. Eyle
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtPerry, J.
Defendant was indicted for the violation of ORS 164.670. Trial was had without a jury before the Circuit Court of Umatilla County. Prom a judgment finding him guilty as charged, defendant appeals. The facts are not in dispute.
Defendant’s argument upon appeal is that the prosecution failed to prove a necessary element of the crime of using a motor vehicle without authority; that the defendant took the automobile “without intent to steal it.” ORS 164.670 provides:
“Every person who takes or uses without authority any vehicle without intent to steal it, or is a party to such unauthorized taking…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Bradshaw v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1939
- State v. PettyIdaho Supreme Court · 1952
- Shannon v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1960
- People v. NovoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- State v. MorrisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- State v. WashingtonOregon Supreme Court · 1975
- Commonwealth v. NaceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
- State v. EastepOregon Supreme Court · 2017
- In re Lakeysha P.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1995
- Spencer v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1973
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.