State v. Eggers, 532 P.3d 518

Defendant was charged with fourth-degree assault but pleaded guilty to harassment "constituting domestic violence" based on allegedly subjecting his brother to "offensive physical contact."
At sentencing the trial court imposed (and entered in judgment) a firearms/ammunition prohibition pursuant to ORS 166.255 and ORS 166.250.
Defense counsel objected to applying ORS 166.255, arguing the statute requires a "credible threat" or a qualifying misdemeanor that has "use or attempted use of physical force." The prosecutor argued harassment qualified because it involves offensive physical contact.
The trial court ruled the firearm prohibition applied and included that restriction in the judgment. Defendant appealed.
The Court of Appeals held the preservation requirement was met and then addressed statutory interpretation: it concluded that "offensive physical contact" (the element of harassment) is not necessarily the "use or attempted use of physical force" required for a "qualifying misdemeanor" under ORS 166.255. The court reversed that portion of the sentence and remanded for a corrected judgment removing the ORS 166.255/166.250 firearms prohibition; the remainder of the judgment was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation of appellate challenge to imposition of ORS 166.255 prohibition	Eggers did not preserve because his trial argument focused on ORS 166.255(1)(a) (restraining orders) and he was not subject to such an order	Eggers sufficiently preserved by objecting to the ORS 166.255 prohibition generally and arguing the statute does not apply (including a "credible threat" point)	Preserved — the court and prosecutor addressed the qualifying-misdemeanor argument at sentencing, satisfying preservation purposes
Whether harassment (offensive physical contact) is a "qualifying misdemeanor" under ORS 166.255 (i.e., has "use or attempted use of physical force" as an element)	Harassment qualifies; Oregon intended to mirror federal VAWA/18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) and adopt Castleman (which treats even slight offensive touching as force)	"Offensive physical contact" is a result-focused element distinct from the "use of physical force" and does not necessarily require force as commonly understood	Harassment is not a qualifying misdemeanor under ORS 166.255 because "offensive physical contact" does not necessarily equal the "use or attempted use of physical force"; remand to remove firearms prohibition

United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (U.S. 2014) (federal Supreme Court: common-law "force" can include slight offensive touching)
State v. Marshall, 350 Or. 208 (Or. 2011) (Oregon Supreme Court: "forcible compulsion"/physical force requires more than incidental touch)
State v. Atwood, 195 Or. App. 490 (Or. Ct. App. 2004) (use of physical force connotes actual strength or power; incidental contact may not suffice)
State v. Sallinger, 11 Or. App. 592 (Or. Ct. App. 1972) (illustrative acts that qualify as "offensive physical contact" under harassment)
State v. Keller, 40 Or. App. 143 (Or. Ct. App. 1979) (spitting and similar contact may satisfy harassment element)
State v. Cloutier, 351 Or. 68 (Or. 2011) (interpretive principle: related statutes presumed to use terms consistently)
Penn v. Board of Parole, 365 Or. 607 (Or. 2019) (federal constructions less persuasive where state text departs from federal law)
State v. Vanornum, 354 Or. 614 (Or. 2013) (preservation rule explained: objection must permit trial court to identify and correct error)