State v. Depeche, 255 P.3d 502

Defendant Depeche, convicted in Washington County of felony failure to report as a sex offender, two misdemeanors for failure to report, resisting arrest, and obtaining contents of communications; convictions followed a joint trial.
Statutes required sex offenders to report changes of residence and annually within 10 days of birth date, with reporting to designated agencies; failure to report within 10 days after a change of residence could be a felony.
In 2007, Depeche moved several times; on May 14 he attempted to report to Beaverton PD but was refused for lack of proof of address.
On August 7 he moved to his mother's residence; on August 18 he attempted to report his change of address; an officer became aware of potential noncompliance and a scuffle occurred, leading to Depeche's arrest.
Cases were consolidated for trial; the court rejected MJOA requests on the misdemeanor counts and convicted on all counts, later merging the two misdemeanor counts upon sentencing.
On appeal, Depeche argued: (1) insufficient proof of failure to report for the two misdemeanors; (2) lack of venue proof for the felony; the State contended venue could be proven by any county where reporting failure occurred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the MJOA on the misdemeanor failures to report was proper.	State argued proof of failure to report was present.	Depeche argued no proof of failure to report was required by statute in this context.	MJOA reversed as to misdemeanors; convictions reversed.
Whether venue was properly proven for the felony failure to report.	State asserted venue in Washington County based on ongoing noncompliance during arrest.	Depeche contended venue failed because conduct occurred outside Washington County and the State must prove venue beyond reasonable doubt.	Venue not proven; felony conviction reversed.
Whether the evidence supported venue under ORS 131.305(1) and related provisions for the specified conduct.	State argued venue in any county where reporting could occur during noncompliance.	Depeche argued venue required a showing the conduct occurred in a specific county.	The State failed to prove the offense occurred in Washington County; venue reversed.

State v. Depeche, 242 Or.App. 147, 252 P.3d 861 (Or. App. 2011) (reversed felony conviction for not reporting change of residence where address proof was not required)
State v. Lynch, 230 Or.App. 23, 213 P.3d 853 (Or. App. 2009) (venue may be proven by showing at least one element occurred in the county)
State v. Cervantes, 319 Or. 121, 873 P.2d 316 (Or. 1994) (venue is a material allegation of the indictment that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Cooksey, 242 Or. 250, 409 P.2d 335 (Or. 1965) (venue principles for criminal prosecutions in Oregon)
State v. Rose, 117 Or.App. 270, 843 P.2d 1005 (Or. App. 1992) (venue should not be used to drag defendants to distant forums; the offense's location matters)