State v. Coven

WARREN, P. J.,

specially concurring.

Although I agree with the majority that State v. Costello, 115 Or App 202, 837 P2d 552 (1992), controls the disposition of this case, I write separately to explain why, if we were not bound by that precedent, I would affirm defendant’s convictions on the drug charges.

In one of its earliest decisions, the Oregon Supreme Court adopted the rule

“that the indictment must disclose upon its face a crime, charged in apt and proper words, and the prosecution is bound to do no more than prove the substantive offence charged. All unnecessary words may * * * be rejected…