State v. Nix
251 Or. App. 449
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant was charged with multiple counts of second-degree animal neglect (ORS 167.325) and first-degree neglect (ORS 167.330) after police found numerous emaciated animals on his farm.
- A jury convicted defendant on 20 counts of second-degree animal neglect, each count alleging different animals and conduct within the same time frame.
- The trial court merged the 20 guilty verdicts into a single conviction under ORS 161.067(2), treating animals as not victims for merger purposes.
- The State appealed, arguing that each neglected animal is a separate victim, requiring separate convictions under ORS 161.067(2).
- The court undertook a statutory interpretation of ORS 167.325 to determine whether the victim is a person, an animal, or the public at large.
- The court ultimately held that the victims are the individual animals, not the defendant or the public, and that separate convictions must be entered for each animal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are animals victims under ORS 161.067(2) for ORS 167.325 offenses? | State contends Glaspey ties victim to underlying statute, so animals are victims. | Defendant argues victim is a person; animals are not victims under ORS 161.067(2). | Animals are victims; separate convictions required. |
| Should ORS 161.067(2) be read in light of ORS 167.325's text and legislative purpose to protect individual animals? | State relies on statutory meaning and public welfare considerations supporting multiple victims. | Defendant emphasizes ordinary meaning of 'victim' as a person and limitations in other provisions. | Victims are the individual animals; statutory context supports separate victims. |
| Does Mullin/Gaines-style statutory interpretation require remand for separate convictions and resentencing? | State seeks multiple separate convictions for each animal. | Defendant opposes multiple convictions. | Remand for entry of separate convictions on each count of ORS 167.325; resentencing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Glaspey, 337 Or 558 (2004) (victim meaning tied to underlying substantive statute; public policy not controlling)
- State v. Torres, 249 Or App 571 (2012) (victim context is function of underlying crime; public can be victim in some cases)
- State v. Mullen, 245 Or App 671 (2011) (look to substantive statute to define 'victims' under ORS 161.067(2))
- State v. Sanchez-Alfonso, 224 Or App 556 (2008) (victim meaning tied to person possessing property or harmed by burglary context)
- State v. Williams, 229 Or App 79 (2009) (victim is the person who suffers harm in robbery context)
- Goodness v. Beckham, 224 Or App 565 (2008) (public as victim where offense against public justice; initiating false report)
- Moncada, 241 Or App 202 (2011) (focus on who suffers harm as the gravamen of the offense)
- Luers, 211 Or App 34 (2007) (consideration of property vs. person in victim analysis)