State v. Woolard

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 1971

Oregon Supreme Court · decided 1971-04-29

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently September 1982

19 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“one breaking and entering with the intent to commit larceny can only be convicted and sentenced for either burglary or larceny, but not for both.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Cloutier

“entirely separate and distinct criminal acts involving different elements,”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Cloutier

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1971-04-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*241HOWELL, J.,

¶1dissenting.

¶2The "burglary statute, OES 164.230, does not require that the breaking and entering be made with the intent to commit any specific crime. The accused could have the intent to commit one or several crimes at the time. In my opinion, the breaking and entering with the intent to commit a crime — in other words, the burglary — and the subsequent crime committed, whether it be larceny, rape or assault, are entirely separate and distinct criminal acts involving different elements. I see no reason, under these circumstances, why the accused should not he convicted and sentenced for both crimes.

Bryson, J., joins in this dissent.