State v. Morales, 530 P.3d 932

Defendant (Morales) entered a vacant Pendleton dwelling by kicking in the back door and damaged a fairly new door and door frame.
Parties stipulated that owners paid $1,045 to remove and replace and paint the door/frame (breakdown: $440 door/frame, $30 paint, $575 labor).
Defendant was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief after a stipulated‑facts bench trial; he asserted insufficiency of evidence as to mens rea for the amount‑of‑damage element.
The Oregon Supreme Court remanded after State v. Shedrick, which held ORS 161.095(2) requires proof of a culpable mental state as to property‑value in first‑degree theft.
On remand the court considered (1) whether ORS 161.095(2) applies to the amount‑of‑damage element of first‑degree criminal mischief and (2) whether the stipulated evidence proved the required culpable mental state (assumed criminal negligence).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 161.095(2) requires proof of a culpable mental state for the amount‑of‑damage element of first‑degree criminal mischief	ORS 161.095(2) applies; the amount‑of‑damage is a material element and requires mens rea	Defendant maintained the evidence was insufficient to show the required mens rea (criminal negligence) for the $1,000 threshold	Yes. ORS 161.095(2) applies; amount‑of‑damage is material and requires at least criminal negligence
Whether the stipulated evidence was sufficient to prove criminal negligence as to the $1,000 damage threshold	The stipulation that a fairly new door/frame had to be replaced and painted costing $1,045 supports a finding of criminal negligence as to the amount	Defendant argued the record did not show he was at least criminally negligent about causing $1,000+ in damage	The stipulated evidence was sufficient to support a finding of criminal negligence as to the amount; the trial court properly denied acquittal

State v. Shedrick, 370 Or 255, 518 P3d 559 (held ORS 161.095 requires a culpable mental state as to property‑value in first‑degree theft)
State v. Morales, 370 Or 471, 520 P3d 882 (Supreme Court remand in light of Shedrick)
State v. Owen, 369 Or 288, 505 P3d 953 (defines "material element" for ORS 161.095 analysis)
State v. Jones, 223 Or App 611, 196 P3d 97 (earlier authority treating value element without mens rea; abrogated by Shedrick)
State v. Stowell, 304 Or App 1, 466 P3d 1009 (similar precedent to Jones; abrogated by Shedrick)
State v. Perkins, 325 Or App 624, 529 P3d 999 (discusses treating culpable mental state as criminal negligence when parties do not argue a higher mens rea)
State v. Boggs, 324 Or App 1, 524 P3d 567 (applied ORS 161.085(10) post‑Shedrick in a first‑degree theft remand)