State v. Medina
324 P.3d 526
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant was stopped for traffic violations, gave a false name (“Sergio Molina”) and birth date, and was arrested for not carrying a license.
- During booking, a property record and fingerprint card bearing the name and birth date of "Sergio Molina" were prepared; the fingerprint card also bore defendant’s fingerprints and a social security number.
- Defendant signed the name “Sergio Molina” on both documents and submitted them to police; the fingerprint card was faxed to AFIS, which identified the defendant.
- Defendant later admitted he had lied about the name to avoid arrest on an outstanding warrant.
- State charged defendant with identity theft under ORS 165.800 (among other offenses); defendant moved for judgment of acquittal arguing ORS 165.800 did not apply.
- Trial court denied the motion; on appeal the court reviewed statutory meaning of “convert,” “utter,” and “personal identification” and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether signing and submitting a property record and fingerprint card bearing another’s name falls within ORS 165.800 | Conduct constituted conversion and uttering of another’s personal identification with intent to deceive | Signing documents at booking was merely continuation of giving false info; statute shouldn’t cover this factual scenario (relying on Fields) | Yes. Signing and submitting documents bearing another’s name constituted converting and uttering personal identification with intent to deceive; conviction affirmed |
| Whether “convert” and “utter” reach defendant’s actions | Statutory text and dictionary meanings cover appropriation of documents and putting documents into circulation | Argues conversion requires written or electronic document creation distinct from mere false statements; uttering was actually officer’s act | Court: “convert” includes appropriating documents; “utter” includes putting documents into circulation — defendant’s submission caused circulation |
| Whether Fields controls outcome | State: Fields distinguishable; legislature expanded scope in 2001 to include intent to deceive rather than only fraud | Defendant: Fields (per curiam) shows legislature did not intend to criminalize misidentification to police | Court: Fields limited to its facts (oral misidentification); 2001 amendment shows intent to cover deception like here |
| Whether intent element satisfied | Evidence (stipulated admissions and conduct) shows defendant intended to deceive to avoid arrest | Defendant disputed applicability of statute rather than intent | Court: Intent to deceive was undisputed and supports conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hall, 327 Or. 568 (review standard for judgment of acquittal)
- State v. Fields, 191 Or. App. 127 (discussing limits of identity-theft statute as applied to oral misidentification)
- State v. Porter, 198 Or. App. 274 (defining “utter” and discussing identity-theft harms)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (statutory interpretation principles)
- State v. Fries, 344 Or. 541 (use of context to select among dictionary definitions)