State v. Matischeck
STATE OF OREGON v. GORDON ROY MATISCHECK
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER CURIAM.
This case is again before us on remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of State v. Hammang, 271 Or 749 , 534 P2d 501 (1975).
We adhere to our prior analysis of the prosecutorial-knowledge element of the double-jeopardy test of State v. Brown, 262 Or 442 , 497 P2d 1191 (1972). However, the Supreme Court’s Hammang decision establishes that the Brown rule does not bar subsequent trial on a charge arising from a single act or trans: action when a former “prosecution” consisted only *301 of a guilty plea. Factually, that is the situation in this case.
Former opinion modified. Affirmed.
Concurrence
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
FOET, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the court’s construction of the rule just announced in State v. Hammang, 271 Or 749 , 534 P2d 501 (1975), as applied to this case, and thus concur in the result now announced affirming the ruling of the trial court.
I adhere, however, to the view expressed in my prior dissenting opinion in this case.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.