State v. Drown, 263 P.3d 1057

Defendant and husband Drown abused nine children in the home, using objects to punish the oldest seven, with injuries including pain, bruising, and scars.
DHS removed the children following testimony; defendant was charged with 12 counts of second-degree assault, 2 counts of fourth-degree assault, and 11 counts of first-degree criminal mistreatment (Counts 15–25, with 15–16 alleged for withholding care to R and Nv; 17–25 for withholding care to other children).
Duress defense was presented, showing years of abuse by Drown; children testified that Drown caused most violence and defendant often acted under his will.
Defendant and Drown moved for judgments of acquittal; the court denied; the jury convicted on Counts 1–11 and 13 (second-degree), Counts 12 and 14 (fourth-degree), and Counts 17–25 (criminal mistreatment), with Counts 15–16 acquitted.
On appeal, preservation and sufficiency challenges were raised; the court addressed whether the defense preserved error and whether evidence supported each mistreatment count.
The court affirmed most assault convictions and Count 17, but reversed Counts 18–25 for lack of sufficient evidence of withholding necessary and adequate physical care under ORS 163.205.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sufficiency supported assault convictions	State argues evidence supported dangerous weapons and injuries.	Drown/defendant contended insufficiency for some counts and not all, given weapon applicability.	Sufficient evidence supported assault convictions
Preservation of error for mistreatment counts	State contends defendant preserved by count-specific motions at trial.	Defendant argues preservation was insufficiently specific per count.	Defendant properly preserved error for each mistreatment count
Interpretation of ORS 163.205 - necessary and adequate care	State contends failure to provide dental/vision care may satisfy first-degree mistreatment.	Defendant argues non-specialized evidence failed to show withholding of essential care for certain counts.	Statutory text and history require withholding of essential, absolutely necessary care
Whether dental care claims (Counts 18–25) meet 'necessary and adequate physical care'	Some dental needs after DHS custody show withheld care for affected children.	Inadequate evidence of duration/severity of toothaches; no proof of ongoing withholding during indictment period.	Counts 18–25 insufficient; reverse
Scope of remand after reversal of Counts 18–25	If counts reversed, remand for resentencing consistent with remaining convictions.	Request for adjustment consistent with overall conviction/sentencing framework.	Reversed Counts 18–25; remanded for resentencing; other counts affirmed

State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (2009) (statutory interpretation in ORS 163.205; no definition of 'necessary' or 'adequate')
PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606 (1993) (plain meaning of terms in statutory interpretation)
State v. Bordeaux, 220 Or. App. 165 (2008) (defines 'necessary' and 'adequate' in context of ORS 163.205)
State v. McCants/Walker, 231 Or. App. 570 (2009) (preservation and sufficiency framework for mistreatment counts)
State v. Baker-Krofft, 348 Or. 655 (2010) (case handling of 'necessary and adequate' care and evidence standards)
State v. Paragon, 195 Or. App. 265 (2004) (risk-based standard for neglect criteria under related statutes)
State v. Haugen, 349 Or. 174 (2010) (preservation and review standards for criminal appeals)
Charles v. Palomo, 347 Or. 695 (2010) (practical preservation doctrine in trial-to-appeal transitions)