On Appellant's Petition for Reconsideration filed July 25, 1979.
On Respondent's Petition for Reconsideration filed July 25, 1979.
The state has filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court, which we treat as a petition for reconsideration. Rule 10.10, Rules of Appellate Procedure. The burden of the petition is that the evidence we held erroneously received would not have changed the result of the trial because the other evidence of guilt was substantial and convincing. We agree that the error was harmless in the light of the other overwhelming evidence that the defendant
Defendant also filed a petition for review, reasserting his contention that the trial court erred in permitting the state to proceed on both intentional murder and felony murder theories and in instructing the jury that, while the jurors could not convict unless they were unanimous in believing the defendant guilty of murder, it was not necessary for them to agree unanimously about which of the state's alternative theories established defendant's guilt.
The decisions in State v. Reyes, 209 Or. 595, 621-22, 303 P.2d 519, 304 P.2d 446, 308 P.2d 182 (1957); State v. Earp, 250 Or. 19, 26, 440 P.2d 214, cert. den. 393 U.S. 891, 89 S.Ct. 212, 21 L.Ed.2d 170 (1968), and State v. Hazelett, 8 Or.App. 44, 46, 492 P.2d 501 (1957); State v. Earp, 250 Or. 19, 26, 440 P.2d 214, cert. den. 393 U.S. 891, 89 S.Ct. 212, 21 L.Ed.2d 170 (1968), and State v. Hazelett, 8 Or.App. 44, 46, 492 P.2d 501, rev. den. (1972), are adverse to defendant's contentions. He argues, however, that the holdings in those cases are no longer viable in light of certain provisions of the 1971 Criminal Code, which pertain to a defendant's ability to form criminal intent — an issue which would be relevant as a defense to an intentional murder theory but presumably not relevant as a defense to a felony murder theory.
We are not persuaded by defendant's statutory arguments. However, we note that the Supreme Court's opinion in State v. Fish, 282 Or. 53, 577 P.2d 500 (1978), makes it questionable whether that court would adhere to Reyes and Earp if the "alternative theory" issue again were to come before it. The two concurring judges strongly suggested their disagreement with the earlier cases. See 282 Or. at 58, 577 P.2d 500.
The petition for reconsideration by the State of Oregon and the petition for reconsideration by the defendant are allowed. The former opinion is modified as described above. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.