From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Hughes

Oregon Supreme Court
Jan 22, 1969
449 P.2d 445 (Or. 1969)

Summary

handwriting not testimonial

Summary of this case from State v. Fish

Opinion

Argued January 10, ____.

Affirmed January 22, 1969.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Polk County, DARRELL J. WILLIAMS, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

J. Marvin Kuhn, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.

John L. Snyder, Deputy District Attorney, Dallas, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

Before McALLISTER, Presiding Justice, and O'CONNELL and DENECKE, Justices.


The defendant's only claim of error is that a handwriting exemplar taken from the defendant was not voluntarily given. We decided in State v. Fisher, 242 Or. 419, 410 P.2d 216 (1966), that the taking of a handwriting exemplar did not violate the privilege against self-incrimination contained in the fifth amendment to the Federal Constitution. The United States Supreme Court subsequently so held in Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S Ct 1951, 18 L Ed2d 1178 (1967).

The manner of obtaining the exemplar did not violate the due process clause of the Federal Constitution. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 759-760, 86 S Ct 1826, 16 L Ed2d 908 (1966).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Hughes

Oregon Supreme Court
Jan 22, 1969
449 P.2d 445 (Or. 1969)

handwriting not testimonial

Summary of this case from State v. Fish
Case details for

State v. Hughes

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. EUGENE A. HUGHES, Appellant

Court:Oregon Supreme Court

Date published: Jan 22, 1969

Citations

449 P.2d 445 (Or. 1969)
449 P.2d 445

Citing Cases

State v. Miller

The authorities do not support his position. State v. Hughes, 87 Or Adv Sh 867, 252 Or. 354, 449 P.2d…

State v. Fish

Other Oregon court interpretations of the privilege have not materially deviated from the foregoing…