State v. Clemente-Perez
359 P.3d 232
Or.2015Background
- Defendant retrieved his estranged wife’s phone from her car, became angry, and took a handgun from an unlocked storage compartment under the back seat of his pickup truck parked under an awning on his property.
- He walked to the backyard, shot and destroyed the phone, wrapped the gun in a towel, returned it to the under-seat compartment, then left in a different truck.
- Charged with unlawful possession of a firearm (ORS 166.250) and second-degree criminal mischief; convicted by jury on both counts after trial court denied a motion for judgment of acquittal.
- On appeal defendant argued (1) the state failed to prove he was "within any vehicle" as required by ORS 166.250(1)(b), and (2) alternatively he qualified for the "place of residence" exception in ORS 166.250(2)(b).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Oregon Supreme Court accepted review and addressed preservation, statutory interpretation of "within any vehicle," and the scope of "place of residence."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant preserved the claim that he was not "within any vehicle" under ORS 166.250(1)(b) | State: defendant’s motion focused on "readily accessible" and "place of residence," but record shows argument was raised | Clemente-Perez: trial court did not expressly address argument that statute requires occupying a vehicle | Preserved: defendant’s repeated trial statements sufficed to alert court and prosecutor to the contention |
| Whether "within any vehicle" modifies "person" or "handgun" and what "within" means | State: phrase refers to location of the handgun; person need not be inside vehicle | Defendant: phrase refers to the person; must occupy vehicle (entire body inside) | "Within any vehicle" can modify person; person (or portion of body) must be inside interior of vehicle to violate statute; court adopts broader plain-meaning interpretation |
| Whether evidence was sufficient that defendant was "within" his truck when possessing the gun | State: accessing under-seat compartment required folding/raising seat — jury could infer body entered interior | Defendant: reaching into parked vehicle from outside is not being "within" | Sufficient evidence: process to access compartment supported reasonable inference some portion (likely substantial) of body was in interior; conviction stands |
| Scope of "place of residence" exception in ORS 166.250(2)(b) | Defendant: exception covers entire residential property or private areas outside residence (truck on driveway) | State: exception limited to residential structure (dwelling) | Held limited to the residential structure (house or other structure used as dwelling); no evidence truck or awning were part of residence, so exception didn’t apply |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Walker, 356 Or 4 (Oregon Supreme Court) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (Oregon Supreme Court) (text, context, legislative history interpretive framework)
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor & Industries, 317 Or 606 (Oregon Supreme Court) (statutory construction principles)
- State v. King, 307 Or 332 (Oregon Supreme Court) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard for criminal convictions)
- State v. Leslie, 204 Or App 715 (Or. Ct. App.) ("place of residence" includes where person actually lives; truck-as-home scenario)
- State v. Wolf, 260 Or App 414 (Or. Ct. App.) (outdoor campsite can be "place of residence" if used for daily living)
- State v. Williams, 161 Or App 111 (Or. Ct. App.) (prompted 1999 amendments; held statute then required vehicle be under person’s control or direction)
- State v. Perry, 336 Or 49 (Oregon Supreme Court) (historical context and narrow reading of statutory residency/business exceptions)