State v. Reeves, 280 P.3d 994

After a bench trial, defendant was convicted on 15 counts of encouraging child sexual abuse in the first degree (ORS 163.684) based on 15 downloaded files; trial court merged the counts’ theory and did not address ORS 161.067(2) preclusion because it relied on ORS 161.067(3) for nonmerger.
Defendant argued for MJOA on insufficiency of evidence that he knowingly duplicated the material.
The court denied MJOA, holding there was sufficient proof of duplication and knowledge.
At sentencing, the court entered 15 convictions, 5 consecutive and 10 concurrent, rejecting merger.
On appeal, defendant challenged MJOA denial and requested merger; the court vacated all 15 convictions and remanded for merger analysis under ORS 161.067(2) and resentencing.
The opinion clarifies that the proper number of convictions depends on how many child victims the images depict, requiring trial-court fact-finding on victim count.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether downloading constitutes duplication under ORS 163.684	State contends duplication occurred via download; facts show download.	Defendant argued downloading may not be duplication.	We assume downloading constitutes duplication for review, without deciding.
Whether the State’s scienter proof was insufficient	State maintained defendant knew file contents and that duplication occurred.	Scienter not proven because knowledge of content not established.	Unpreserved argument; not reviewed.
Whether ORS 161.067(3) sufficient pause required for merger	State says there was a sufficient pause between downloads.	No evidence of pause; individual downloads could be concurrent.	No evidence of a pause; ORS 161.067(3) inapplicable.
Whether ORS 161.067(2) governs merger by victim count	Victims are the children depicted; multiple victims preclude merger.	Statute does not identify specific victims; no multiple victims.	Victim status under ORS 163.684 is the child depicted; merger depends on trial court determinations; convictions vacated and remanded.

State v. Hall, 327 Or 568 (Or. 1998) (standard for review of MJOA on sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Urbina, 249 Or App 267 (Or. App. 2012) (preservation limits on downloading-duplication argument; related principles)
State v. Williams, 313 Or 19 (Or. 1992) (knowingly defined; mens rea standards)
State v. Stoneman, 323 Or 536 (Or. 1996) (focus of 163.684 on child abuse elements; victim concept)
State v. Hamilton, 348 Or 371 (Or. 2010) (framework for determining victims under ORS 161.067(2))
State v. Glaspey, 337 Or 558 (Or. 2004) (victim determination under 161.067(2) methodology)
State v. Moncada, 241 Or App 202 (Or. App. 2011) (determining victim class when statute does not specify victims)