State v. Ritter, 280 Or. App. 281

Defendant, jailed at Marion County Jail on domestic-violence charges, had a no-contact order prohibiting calls to the victim (C).
Jail phones required a personal identification number (PIN) and voice password (Telmate system) to initiate monitored calls.
Defendant’s cellmate entered his own PIN, dialed C, and after speaking briefly voluntarily handed the phone to defendant, who spoke with C ~20 minutes.
Defendant was charged with identity theft (ORS 165.800) based on allegedly converting the cellmate’s PIN to his own use; bench trial followed and the court denied motions for judgment of acquittal.
Trial evidence: the recorded call, testimony about the Telmate system, and C’s testimony that the incoming call showed a prepaid account rather than a name; cellmate did not testify.
On appeal the sole contested legal issue was whether defendant’s act of taking the call converted the cellmate’s PIN to defendant’s own use under the identity-theft statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether taking over a call initiated by another inmate who used his own PIN "converts" that PIN to the taker’s own use under ORS 165.800	The state: the PIN authorization continued for the duration of the call, so by taking over the call defendant took over use of the PIN and thus appropriated it (victim of conversion could be the jail/Telmate)	Defendant: he never took, possessed, controlled, or claimed the PIN; the cellmate voluntarily used his own PIN and retained control over it, so no appropriation occurred	Reversed: insufficient evidence of appropriation/ conversion — taking the call did not convert the cellmate’s PIN to defendant’s own use; conviction for identity theft vacated

State v. Medina, 357 Or 254 (construing “converts to the person’s own use” to require taking/appropriating/divesting another’s personal identification and using it with requisite intent)
State v. McAnulty, 356 Or 432 (statutory interpretation may consider prior constructions)
State v. Langley, 314 Or 247 (review standard: view facts in light most favorable to state on sufficiency)
State v. Zibulsky, 266 Or App 633 (identity-theft gravamen is improper use of another’s identity)
State v. Mullen, 245 Or App 671 (identity-theft aimed at misappropriation for pecuniary gain and risk of loss to the person identified)
State v. Newman, 353 Or 632 (use of dictionary definitions in statutory interpretation)
State v. Klein, 352 Or 302 (context includes related statutes such as theft when interpreting terms like “appropriate”)