TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Black v. Gladden

Black v. Gladden, 393 P.2d 190 (Or. 1964)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 10, 1964
Judges
McAllister, Rossman, Perry, Sloan, O'Connell, Goodwin, Denecke
Citations
393 P.2d 190237 Or. 6311964 Ore. LEXIS 408
Cited by 12 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion — O'Connell

O’CONNELL, J.

This is a post-conviction proceeding in which plaintiff seeks discharge from the Oregon State Penitentiary. Plaintiff was convicted of the crime of shoplifting, ORS 164.390, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term not to exceed six years. The value of the goods taken was approximately $2.30.

Plaintiff contends that he was denied the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 20 of the Oregon Constitution. He relies upon State v. Powell, 212 Or 684 , 321 P2d 333 (1958) which held that if there is no rational basis for distinguishing the acts committed by one person from the acts committed by another, the acts of one .cannot be treated solely as a felony and the acts of the other solely as a misdemeanor.

Plaintiff argues that there is no rational distinction between the acts proscribed in ORS 164.310, the larceny statute, and the acts proscribed in ORS 164.390, the shoplifting statute, and that, therefore, if two persons do identical acts of taking, one may be charged by the grand jury or magistrate with a felony and the other with a misdemeanor without any guiding standard to guide them in making the distinction.

There is a reasonable basis for regarding theft committed in a store or other mercantile establishment as a separate social evil, distinct from theft committed under other circumstances. This is clearly *633 a matter for legislative discretion. The fact that a person may he charged with either ORS 164.810 or ORS 164.390 at the discretion of the district attorney, magistrate or grand jury does not give rise to a constitutional objection.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1965: 31966: 11968: 11970: 11971: 11972: 11973: 11980: 11983: 11987: 119652026peak 1965 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Reynolds614 P.2d 1158 (Or. 1980)
  2. Rose v. Gladden405 P.2d 543 (Or. 1965)
  3. Caton v. State479 S.W.2d 537 (Ark. 1972)
  4. People v. Ford331 N.W.2d 878 (Mich. 1987)
  5. State v. Keys419 P.2d 943 (Or. 1966)
  6. State v. Little407 P.2d 627 (Or. 1965)

Most recent

  1. People v. Ford331 N.W.2d 878 (Mich. 1987)
  2. People v. McNeal458 N.E.2d 630 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)
  3. State v. Reynolds614 P.2d 1158 (Or. 1980)
  4. People v. Bohm212 N.W.2d 61 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973)
  5. Caton v. State479 S.W.2d 537 (Ark. 1972)
  6. People v. Jackson185 N.W.2d 608 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Powell, 321 P.2d 333 (Or. 1958) 15

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list