259 P.3d 966
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant was convicted of two counts of failing to report as a sex offender under ORS 181.599.
- He previously was on probation for a sex crime and had to report changes of residence within 10 days to specified authorities.
- In June 2007 he reported a change of address to his supervising officer (Crim), who then directed him to report to another agency.
- Crim later informed Oregon State Police that defendant had not updated his registration as required.
- Count 1 charged failure to report within 10 days to an appropriate agency after changing residence; evidence showed reporting to the supervising agency but not to the police as directed.
- Count 2 charged a change of residence in January 2008 and the vagueness challenge to the term “change of residence” was raised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indictment adequately alleged reporting as required to the supervising agency | State argues indictment can cover reporting to an appropriate agency | Reigard contends indictment requires report to non-supervising agencies only | Count 1 affirmed; indictment valid under surrounding language |
| Whether the term “change of residence” is unconstitutionally vague as applied to Count 2 | State contends vagueness not met given ordinary meaning of residence | Reigard argues vague without clear definition | Vagueness rejected; term not unconstitutionally vague under the facts |
| Whether the court’s supplemental jury instruction after closing was improper comment on the evidence | State argues instruction clarified statutory mechanism | Reigard argues instruction was improper comment | Not reviewable due to preservation rule (ORAP 5.45) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lane, 341 Or. 433 (2006) (state must prove knowledge of reporting requirement)
- State v. Rutley, 343 Or. 368 (2007) (ambiguous indictment language does not broaden statute's requirements)
- State v. Hamlett, 235 Or. App. 72 (2010) (no elevated burden of proof from ambiguous pleading)
- Graves v. Graves, 299 Or. 189 (1985) ( vagueness requires reasonable certainty, not perfect precision)
- Illig-Renn v. State, 341 Or. 228 (2006) (vagueness challenge standards under state/federal constitutions)
- State v. Depeche, 242 P.3d 861 (2011) (indictment scope and notice considerations)