State v. Alvarado
257 Or. App. 612
| Or. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant was convicted of unlawfully obliterating a firearm identification number (ORS 166.450) and unlawful possession of a firearm (ORS 166.250).
- The firearm was found during a vehicle search after a traffic stop for speeding and failure to display a front license plate.
- Defendant contends suppression of the search evidence due to an unlawfully extended stop and a separate motion for acquittal on the obliteration charge based on an alleged unlawful evidentiary presumption.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion and defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal; the court convicted on the obliteration and possession counts.
- On appeal, the court reversed and remanded for suppression and reexamination of the obliteration conviction, concluding the stop was unlawfully extended but the evidence still supported some elements of the offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was unlawfully extended without reasonable suspicion | State | Schuman argues the stop extended beyond its legitimate scope | Yes; stop extended unlawfully, suppression required |
| Whether ORS 166.450's presumptive evidence phrase eliminates the need to prove intent | State | Rainey/OEC 309 require evidence of intent; presumption improper | Presumptive evidence is not a mandatory presumption; jury may infer but must prove all elements beyond reasonable doubt |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict on ORS 166.450 | State | Evidence did not prove intentional obliteration for unlawful purpose beyond doubt | There was enough evidence for a rational finder of fact to convict on remand |
| Whether the suppression ruling should affect the obliteration/possession convictions | State | Suppression should apply to evidence obtained after unlawful stop | Remand for suppression; convictions reversed in light of illegal stop |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rainey, 298 Or 459 (1985) (presumptions and OEC 309 limits on inferred facts in acquittal motions)
- State v. Rader, 348 Or 81 (2010) (trial standard for acquittal; context of acquittal review)
- State v. Hall, 327 Or 568 (1998) (standard for reviewing denial of suppression motion)
- Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979) (due process concerns with presumptions shifting burden)
- State v. Andrews, 174 Or App 354 (2001) (remand when trial court failed to consider material elements)