State v. C. C. W. (In re C.C.W.), 294 Or. App. 701

Juvenile court petition charged Youth with acts that, if by an adult, would constitute second‑degree criminal mischief (and other counts).
At the contested jurisdiction hearing, the judge orally declared Youth within the court’s jurisdiction for acts constituting the lesser‑included offense (third‑degree criminal mischief) due to a misunderstanding about an element.
The court reduced that spoken ruling to a written judgment finding jurisdiction on the lesser offense and continued the matter for disposition and motion.
After a recess and briefing, the court concluded it could amend the written judgment and entered an amended judgment finding Youth responsible for the originally charged greater offense (second‑degree criminal mischief) and disposed in part on that finding.
Youth appealed, arguing the written adjudication on the lesser‑included offense was an acquittal that invoked double jeopardy protections and barred the subsequent adjudication for the greater offense.
The appellate court reversed: the written judgment was final and constituted an acquittal of the greater offense, so amending it to adjudicate the greater offense violated double jeopardy; remanded to enter dispositional judgment based on the lesser offense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court’s initial written adjudication on a lesser‑included offense constituted a final acquittal that bars later adjudication of the greater offense under double jeopardy	Youth: the written judgment was final and operated as an acquittal of the greater offense, precluding subsequent adjudication	State: the initial ruling was tentative/mistaken and part of an ongoing process; the court could correct it and adjudicate the greater offense	Held: The written judgment was final and an acquittal of the greater offense; amending it to adjudicate the greater offense violated double jeopardy

Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. 313 (acquittal premised on substantive legal error bars reprosecution)
United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (conviction of lesser included offense acts as implicit acquittal of greater)
Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (double jeopardy protects against repeated prosecutions and harassment)
Swisher v. Brady, 438 U.S. 204 (bifurcated juvenile procedure where preliminary recommendations are not final until adopted)
Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (double jeopardy protections apply in juvenile adjudications)
State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Decoster, 23 Or. App. 179 (juvenile court’s adjudication on lesser offenses barred relitigation of greater offense)
State v. Cardwell, 48 Or. App. 93 (written judgment governs and controls over prior oral statements absent clerical ambiguity)