State v. Rainoldi, 268 P.3d 568

In 2004 defendant was convicted of two Class C felonies (forgery in the first degree and identity theft) and sentenced to 24 months' probation, completed May 2006.
At a gun show, defendant attempted to purchase a shotgun and, on a background form, stated he had never been convicted of a felony.
Police learned of the felon status; defendant explained he believed his felonies were reduced to misdemeanors after probation.
Trial included a charge of attempted felon in possession of a firearm; defendant admitted the attempted purchase and testified he thought his felonies were misdemeanors.
Jury convicted of attempted felon in possession of a firearm; Court of Appeals held ORS 166.270(1) requires knowledge of felony; Supreme Court reversed that ruling and affirmed circuit court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 166.270(1) requires proof defendant knew he was a felon at the time of possession or attempted purchase.	Rainoldi argued knowledge of felon status is required.	Rainoldi contends statute does not require such knowledge and may dispense with culpable state.	Statute dispenses with knowledge requirement for the felon status element.

State v. Rutley, 343 Or 368 (Or. 2007) (analyze non-Code offenses; 'clearly indicates' legislative intent)
State v. Miller, 309 Or 362 (Or. 1990) (silence in DUII statute as indication of dispense with mental state)
Buttrey, 293 Or 575 (Or. 1982) (statutory structure and purpose indicate intent to dispense with mental state)
Bailey v. Lampert, 342 Or 321 (Or. 2007) (status-focused element; time of possession controls)
State v. Anderson, 241 Or 18 (Or. 1965) (issue of whether prior felony status is a matter of law)
Tippee, 269 Or 661 (Or. 1974) (legislature's view on felon-in-possession statutes)
State v. Hirsch/Friend, 338 Or 622 (Or. 2005) (upheld constitutionality of ORS 166.270)
State v. Robinson, 217 Or 612 (Or. 1959) (purpose of felon-in-possession statute and public safety)