445 P.3d 358
Or. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant entered a vacant, boarded commercial building owned by Palindrome Communities during redevelopment and was seen touching and then breaking flexible copper water supply piping.
- The building was secured and fenced; defendant was escorted out by police after being discovered.
- The broken copper pipe suffered physical harm but, according to evidence, suffered no diminution in salvage value or other measurable economic loss.
- Defendant was tried and convicted by the court (waived jury) of second-degree criminal trespass (ORS 164.245) and second-degree criminal mischief (ORS 164.354).
- At the close of the state’s case, defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on criminal mischief, arguing the state failed to show economic loss; the trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal, the central question was whether the statutory element that a person "damages property of another" requires proof of economic loss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "damages" in ORS 164.354(1)(b) requires proof of economic loss | State: "damages" means harm to property; no economic-loss requirement | Gibson: statutory "damages" requires proof of diminution in monetary value | Court held: "damages" need not mean economic loss; physical or functional harm suffices |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cunningham, 320 Or. 47 (establishes standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)
- State v. Murray, 340 Or. 599 (use of dictionaries to determine ordinary statutory meaning)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (statutory interpretation—text, context, legislative history)
- State v. Dickerson, 356 Or. 822 (presumption that common words have ordinary meanings)
- Kohring v. Ballard, 355 Or. 297 (examining word usage in context)
- State v. Waterhouse, 359 Or. 351 (property under criminal code linked to value; whether value is required depends on statute)
- State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela, 358 Or. 451 (contextual statutory interpretation)
- State v. Branch, 362 Or. 351 (use of criminal code commentary and subcommittee records as legislative history)
- Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 363 Or. 537 (courts may not insert omitted statutory language)