State v. Civil, 388 P.3d 1185

Defendant worked as a Farm Fresh Foods driver and was given a van on April 15, 2014, to pick up a co-worker (McClure) and return to the warehouse the same evening.
Defendant did not pick up McClure, did not return the van that night, and the van was found abandoned five days later with spoiled inventory.
Defendant was indicted for unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV) under ORS 164.135(1)(a) and tried in a bench trial; acquitted of second-degree theft.
At trial the State argued defendant’s conduct was unauthorized under subsection (1)(a), relying on State v. Cox; defense argued the proof established only subsection (1)(c) (temporal retention) which was not charged.
The trial court convicted defendant of UUV; on appeal the court reexamined Cox and statutory history, legislative materials, and commentary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 164.135(1)(a) criminalizes deviations from an owner’s agreement to possess/use a vehicle (including temporal and non‑temporal deviations)	State: (and Cox precedent) subsection (1)(a)’s broad verbs cover unauthorized use beyond initial consent, so deviations (including non‑temporal spatial/use deviations) fall under (1)(a)	Defendant: (and legislative history/commentary) deviations from agreed use are governed by the specific subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c); (1)(a) applies only where there was no consent	The court overruled Cox and held (1)(a) does not apply to possession pursuant to an agreement that the possessor then deviates from; temporal retention is governed by (1)(c) exclusively; Cox was "plainly wrong."

State v. Cox, 96 Or. App. 473, 772 P.2d 1385 (Or. App. 1989) (earlier panel construed ORS 164.135(1)(a) broadly to cover unauthorized deviations from agreed use)
State v. Medina, 357 Or. 254, 355 P.3d 108 (Or. 2015) (indictment limits the State to charged statutory theory)
Farmers Ins. Co. v. Mowry, 350 Or. 686, 261 P.3d 1 (Or. 2011) (stare decisis — framework and "plainly wrong" standard for overruling precedent)
State v. Olive, 259 Or. App. 104, 312 P.3d 588 (Or. App. 2013) (applied "plainly wrong" reconsideration in statutory construction)
PGE v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 317 Or. 606, 859 P.2d 1143 (Or. 1993) (methodology for statutory construction)
State v. Douthitt, 33 Or. App. 333, 576 P.2d 1262 (Or. App. 1978) (discussed scope of "exercises control" under UUV and relied on commentary)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160, 206 P.3d 1042 (Or. 2009) (statutory interpretation principles referenced)