State v. Lee, 342 P.3d 1095

Defendant was convicted of third-degree criminal mischief under ORS 164.345(1) for tampering with another's property with intent to cause substantial inconvenience and without a right to do so.
The State presented evidence that defendant chained an SUV in his parking spot to his own truck and towed it about 20 feet, causing bumper damage to the SUV.
At trial, the court instructed the jury that tamper means conduct that alters, rearranges, or changes property.
Defense objected, arguing the instruction was incomplete and must show adverse effect on the property or its use.
The Supreme Court analyzed the term 'tamper' through text, context, and legislative history, citing Schoen and related authorities to determine the proper scope.
The court held that tamper requires an adverse effect on the property or its use, reversed the conviction, and remanded for new instruction and considerations of harmless error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does tamper require an adverse effect on property?	State argued tamper encompasses conduct altering or interfering with property.	Said no adverse-effect requirement; only alteration/change suffices.	Yes; tamper requires an adverse effect on property or its use.
Was the erroneous instruction harmless error?	Error could mislead jury about element and focus it on moving property rather than tampering.	Not specified; trial error was reversible per the record.	Not harmless; reversal and remand required.

State v. Schoen, 348 Or 207 (Or 2010) (tampering requires adverse effect and is not all acts done with intent to cause inconvenience)
State v. Brown, 310 Or 347 (Or 1990) (instruction correctness in statute interpretation matters)
Gaines, 346 Or 160 (Or 2009) (method for statutory interpretation considering text, context, and history)