State v. Dickerson
260 Or. App. 80
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant was convicted of second-degree criminal mischief for damaging state property by shooting state-owned deer decoys, aiding his son in the act.
- Decoys were placed by state police to test hunting-law compliance; the incident occurred after legal hunting hours.
- The State charged three counts, including second-degree criminal mischief targeting a wildlife decoy owned by the State of Oregon.
- During trial the State moved to strike references to the wildlife decoy; the court granted the motion, altering the theory to ownership by the State.
- Defendant argued wild deer are not property of any person or entity, so no ‘property of another’ was damaged; the State argued otherwise based on sovereign interest.
- The Oregon Supreme Court ultimately held that wild deer are the State’s property of another for purposes of ORS 164.305(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wild deer constitute property of another under ORS 164.305(2). | State asserts sovereign interest makes deer property of another. | Deer are not property of any entity; sovereign interest cannot be legal/equitable interest. | Yes; wild deer are property of another. |
| Whether the state's sovereign interest in wild deer is a legal or equitable interest under ORS 164.305(2). | Sovereign interest falls within legal/equitable interests defined by statute. | Sovereign interest is not a legal or equitable interest under the statute. | Sovereign interest qualifies as a legal interest. |
| Does legislative history support broadening ORS 164.305(2) to include sovereign interests. | Legislative history shows expansion to include non-possessory interests. | No need to rely on legislative history to interpret 'property of another'. | Legislative history supports expansion to include sovereign interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simpson v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, 242 Or App 287 (2011) (wildlife is the state's property, but not in common ownership sense; sovereign interest)
- Couch v. State, 196 Or App 665 (2006) (early treatment of wildlife ownership and sovereignty in state law)
- State v. Hume, 52 Or 1 (1908) (fish wildlife as ferae naturae held in trust by the state for citizens)