Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided July 22, 1987No. C86-03-31287 C86-03-31288 C86-03-31293 CA A41084 (Control) CA A41085 CA A41086Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partYoung, J.

I agree with the majority that the issue here is whether each count alleges an “aggregate transaction” within the meaning of ORS 164.055(1)(a), and that the test is whether the acts alleged in each count are so closely linked in time, place and circumstance that a complete account of one charge cannot be related without relating details of the other charge. See State v. Barnes, 14 Or App 23, 511 P2d 1235 (1973). I also agree that the trial court should have allowed the demurrer as to the information charging theft from Fred Meyer (case no. C86-03-31287) and as to Count I of the information…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. ClipstonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1970
  2. State v. BarnesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973
  3. State v. PenaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API