State v. Heneghan

EDMONDS, J.,

specially concurring.

I agree that the holdings in State v. Atkinson, 98 Or App 48, 777 P2d 1010 (1989), and State v. Brown/Ford, 106 Or App 291, 807 P2d 316, rev den 311 Or 427 (1991), dictate the majority’s result, but I suggest that the analysis in those cases is incorrect. In Atkinson, the defendant conceded that his convictions for attempted assault and possession of a *639weapon by an inmate would normally not “merge,” because those crimes do not require proof of identical elements. However, the indictment alleged the crimes in such a way that proof of the completion of one…