397 P.3d 497
Or. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2011 police found two homemade devices in defendant’s truck; defendant admitted he made them to be like fireworks and wanted to “hear them go boom.”
- Each device was a plastic container holding smokeless powder and small "snap pop" fireworks; one had a fuse; expert testified explosions could burn or send plastic fragments that could injure.
- Defendant was charged with two counts of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device (ORS 166.384), waived a jury, and was convicted by the trial court.
- Defense argued the devices were "pyrotechnic devices" (fireworks) and thus excluded from the statutory definition of "destructive device" under ORS 166.382(2)(a).
- Trial court found defendant’s intent was to make a display or audible boom but concluded the objects were destructive devices and denied a judgment of acquittal.
- On appeal the court considered statutory interpretation (definition of "pyrotechnic device"/"firework") and whether the trial court’s factual findings required reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "pyrotechnic device" (firework) is excluded from the statutory "destructive device" definition | Agrees exclusion exists but contends Garrett’s use of the former ORS 480.110 definition is dicta; proposes a narrower dictionary-based definition of "firework" | "Pyrotechnic device" = firework; use former ORS 480.110 definition: combustible or explosive substances prepared to provide a visual or audible effect; exclusion applies | Court: Adheres to Garrett and J.N.S.; "pyrotechnic device" = firework as defined in former ORS 480.110 and is excluded from "destructive device" definition |
| Whether, given the trial court's factual findings, the devices were excluded because designed primarily as pyrotechnic (fireworks) | Argues devices are not fireworks under its proposed (paper-case-typical) definition | Points to trial court finding that defendant’s intent was to make a display/"hear something go boom"; therefore primary purpose was pyrotechnic | Court: Trial court expressly found intent to produce an audible/display effect; applying the correct statutory definition, devices fall within the fireworks exclusion; conviction reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Garrett, 193 Or. App. 629 (Or. Ct. App. 2004) (construed "pyrotechnic device" as referring to "fireworks" and relied on former ORS 480.110 definition)
- State v. J. N. S., 258 Or. App. 310 (Or. Ct. App. 2013) (followed Garrett; held pyrotechnic devices = fireworks under former ORS 480.110)
- State v. Clum, 216 Or. App. 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2007) (discussed appellate review where trial court made dispositive factual finding and reversed based on that finding)
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Indus., 317 Or. 606 (Or. 1993) (statutory interpretation methodology relied upon)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (Or. 2009) (statutory interpretation principles cited)
- State v. Civil, 283 Or. App. 395 (Or. Ct. App. 2017) (standard for overruling court precedent referenced)