State v. Arriaga-Mendoza, 504 P.3d 703

Defendant Felipe Arriaga-Mendoza was charged with misdemeanor driving while suspended (DWS) under ORS 811.182; the information alleged the offense occurred on or about January 24, 2017.
At a bench trial, the State produced evidence that defendant drove while suspended on December 22, 2016, not January 24, 2017.
Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal (MJOA) arguing the State failed to prove the charged date; the trial court denied the motion and convicted him of DWS.
Defendant also objected at trial to the admission of a prior unredacted judgment of conviction as irrelevant; on appeal he argued it was unfairly prejudicial and portrayed prior bad acts.
The Court of Appeals held the prejudice/bad-acts complaint was unpreserved (defendant only objected on relevance below) and rejected the preserved MJOA/date-variance claim on the merits.
The court concluded the statute defines timing as a period of suspension (not a specific date), both alleged and proven dates fell within that suspension period, and the variance was not material or prejudicial; conviction affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the specific date alleged is a material element of DWS such that a variance requires acquittal	Date need not be exact; statute criminalizes driving during a period of suspension, so proving any date within the suspension suffices	The information alleged a specific date (Jan 24, 2017) but proof was of a different date (Dec 22, 2016); that variance is material and deprived him of required notice	Date is not a material element; statute fixes the relevant time as the suspension period. Both dates fell within that period; variance not material; MJOA properly denied
Admissibility of a prior unredacted judgment of conviction (relevance/prejudice)	Admission was proper for proving the suspension; State argues defendant did not preserve a prejudice/bad-acts objection	The unredacted judgment contained irrelevant information that unfairly portrayed defendant as a bad person and was prejudicial	Objection below was limited to relevance; prejudice/bad-acts claim unpreserved and not reviewed; appellate court rejects this assignment

State v. Rennells, 213 Or App 423 (review standard for denial of MJOA)
State v. Newman, 179 Or App 1 (variance material where charging allegation identified entity imposing suspension and proof differed)
State v. Samuel, 289 Or App 618 (variance impermissible if it concerns a material element or prejudices defendant)
State v. Tidyman, 54 Or App 640 (time is material only if act would be crime on alleged date but not on another date)
State v. Stavenjord, 290 Or App 669 (assess whether removing the varied allegation leaves an instrument that still states the offense)