State v. Lasky
314 P.3d 304
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant consigned a 1992 truck and trailer to Pacific Coast for sale; they remained on Pacific Coast’s fenced, locked lot for over two years.
- Defendant and friends attempted removal during business hours after Pacific Coast demanded payment for repairs; defendant left without the vehicles. Pacific Coast later blocked the vehicles and photographed them and filed a mechanic’s lien.
- Defendant alleges he called Portland police before taking the vehicles and was told he could lawfully reclaim them by driving them off the lot; the trial court excluded testimony about what the officer told him as irrelevant.
- That night defendant returned after hours, removed the lock, entered the lot, moved a blocking car, and took the truck and trailer; he was later charged with two counts of unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), criminal trespass in the second degree, and criminal mischief in the third degree.
- At trial the state argued Pacific Coast had a superior possessory interest; defendant argued he believed he had a superior possessory interest (claim-of-right) and that the police statement was probative of his mens rea for UUV; the trial court excluded the police-statement evidence and the jury convicted on all counts.
- On appeal the court considered whether excluding the officer’s statement was reversible error as to the UUV counts, and whether the exclusion was preserved for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/relevance of police officer’s statement that defendant could reclaim his vehicles | Evidence irrelevant; ignorance of law not a defense; even if told by police, subjective belief immaterial to UUV mens rea | Statement was relevant to defendant’s state of mind and whether he believed he had a superior possessory right (affecting knowledge of lack of owner consent) | Court: Exclusion was error — the statement was relevant to mens rea for UUV; convictions on Count 1 and 2 reversed and remanded |
| Preservation of appellate claim that exclusion was erroneous | Exclusion should be unpreserved because defendant made no formal offer of proof | Trial record (motions and colloquy) sufficiently disclosed substance of excluded evidence so error preserved | Court: Preserved — parties and trial court knew substance and arguments despite no formal offer of proof |
| Relevance of excluded evidence to trespass and mischief charges | Evidence not shown to be relevant to those charges | Defendant later argued relevance also to trespass and mischief | Court: Unpreserved — defendant did not argue relevance to those counts at trial; appellate review limited to UUV counts |
| Applicability of statutory ‘‘honest claim of right’’ defense to UUV | (State) Defense limited to theft statutes and not available for UUV | (Defendant) Even if statutory defense limited, evidence still probative because state must prove knowledge of lack of owner consent beyond a reasonable doubt | Court: Did not decide statutory scope; held regardless that mens rea element requires proof and police statement was relevant to that element |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Titus, 328 Or. 475, 982 P.2d 1133 (relevance determinations reviewed as questions of law)
- Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or. 209, 191 P.3d 637 (when an offer of proof is unnecessary because the record otherwise shows excluded evidence’s substance)
- State v. Beden, 162 Or. App. 178, 986 P.2d 94 (evidence that tends to make defendant’s theory more likely is relevant)
- State v. Bell, 220 Or. App. 266, 185 P.3d 541 (state must prove defendant actually knew the car was stolen to convict of UUV)
- State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Mitchell, 142 Or. App. 40, 920 P.2d 1103 (mens rea requirement for knowledge that vehicle was stolen in UUV context)
- State v. Shuneson, 132 Or. App. 283, 888 P.2d 90 (reversal where insufficient evidence that defendant knew she lacked owner’s consent)
- State v. Jordan, 79 Or. App. 682, 719 P.2d 1327 (UUV requires that defendant know the vehicle was stolen / lacked owner consent)
- State v. Dubois, 221 Or. App. 644, 191 P.3d 670 (jury may disbelieve claim of right; sufficiency of evidence to prove knowledge of lack of consent)