345 P.3d 478
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant, a convicted sex offender, reported residence at the Roseburg Rescue Mission (a homeless shelter) and was last recorded there in late January 2012.
- Sixteen days after his last recorded stay, police arrested defendant; the state charged him under former ORS 181.599(1)(d) for failing to report a move to a new residence within 10 days.
- At trial the state proved defendant left the mission and did not report within 10 days, but presented no evidence that he had acquired a new residence after leaving the mission.
- The trial court denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal and convicted him; defendant appealed the failure-to-report conviction (a consolidated methamphetamine possession conviction was also affirmed on appeal).
- The key statutory phrase in dispute was "moves to a new residence" in former ORS 181.599(1)(d), amended in 2009 after State v. Macnab.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "moves to a new residence" requires acquisition of a new residence before reporting duty is triggered | State: "moves" (present tense) means duty is triggered when a move begins (i.e., upon leaving former residence) | Defendant: requires a completed change — both leaving former residence and acquiring a new residence | Court: duty to report is triggered only after leaving former residence and acquiring a new residence; conviction reversed |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction when state proved only departure from former residence but not acquisition of new one | State: proof defendant left former residence and failed to report within 10 days suffices | Defendant: without proof he obtained a new residence, conviction rests on speculation | Court: evidence was insufficient — state failed to prove acquisition of a new residence beyond speculation; judgment of acquittal should have been granted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cox, 219 Or. App. 319 (discusses preamendment triggering of reporting duty upon leaving former residence)
- State v. Macnab, 222 Or. App. 332 (addressed venue problems under reporting statutes; prompted 2009 legislative amendment)
- State v. Bivins, 191 Or. App. 460 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on motion for judgment of acquittal)
- State v. Mills, 354 Or. 350 (Oregon Supreme Court addressed when venue need not be proved if not raised before trial)