State v. Litscher
285 Or. App. 508
| Or. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant held his mother at gunpoint on the porch of the family cabin for ~20 minutes; the cabin is remote, not visible from the road, nearest neighbor 8–10 miles away, and cell reception only at a particular spot inside.
- Mother felt unable to leave while defendant pointed a shotgun at her; she did not attempt to retrieve personal items or call for help and left only after defendant put the gun down and went inside.
- Defendant was tried and convicted by a jury of first‑degree kidnapping (based on ‘‘secret confinement’’), felon in possession, unlawful use of a weapon, menacing (domestic violence), and pointing a firearm; sentence included 144 months on kidnapping.
- On appeal defendant raised an unpreserved claim that the evidence was insufficient to show he “secretly confined” the victim “in a place where [she was] not likely to be found” under ORS 163.225(1)(b).
- The court applied plain‑error review for the unpreserved sufficiency challenge and considered whether no reasonable juror could have found the statutory element.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported element that victim was "secretly confined" in a place she was not likely to be found | Remote cabin, victim prevented from leaving, no phone access, unlikely anyone would find her during the confinement | Mother was outside in her own yard, not hidden; no locked room or explicit prevention of calling for help; thus not "secretly confined" in a place not likely to be found | Court affirmed: not plain error to deny acquittal — reasonable juror could infer secret confinement and that cabin was a place where she was not likely to be found |
| Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing to acquit on kidnapping (unpreserved) | Plain‑error standard not satisfied because record supports inferences favoring the state | Defendant contended error was obvious and apparent from record | Court held defendant did not meet the stringent plain‑error criteria; review discretionary and denial affirmed |
| Whether appellate court should reach unpreserved sentencing claims on concurrent counts | Not necessary because challenged sentences are concurrent and shorter than kidnapping sentence; no prejudice shown | Defendant argued sentencing errors merited review | Court declined to exercise discretion to address them |
| Whether confinement can occur outside an enclosed room or within one’s home when circumstances show concealment | State argued Parkins and subsequent cases allow inferences based on place, victim, and defendant’s actions | Defendant argued Parkins requires that others could not have found victim (citing presence in home) | Court relied on precedents: confinement can be in open spaces or within home depending on circumstances; affirmed conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333 (2009) (defines "secretly confines in a place where the person is not likely to be found" and directs consideration of place, victim, and defendant’s actions)
- State v. Vaughan‑France, 279 Or App 305 (2016) (upholds secret‑confinement kidnapping where victim was hidden in a motel room and others were not shown to know her location during the assault)
- State v. Montgomery, 50 Or App 381 (1981) (pre‑Parkins precedent affirming secret confinement where defendant took steps to prevent discovery by police or others)