State v. Shedrick, 518 P.3d 559

Defendant (Shedrick) grabbed a bank-wrapped bundle of 100 $20 bills (bank band showed $2,000) sitting atop a bar ATM and began to leave; a patron stopped him, returned the money, and police were summoned.
State charged defendant with first-degree theft under ORS 164.055(1)(a), which requires that the total value of the property in the transaction is $1,000 or more.
At trial defendant requested jury instructions that the State must prove a culpable mental state (at least criminal negligence) as to the value element; the trial court declined and denied a judgment of acquittal.
Jury convicted; the Court of Appeals affirmed, following precedent that no mental state was required as to value.
Oregon Supreme Court held that ORS 161.095(2) requires a culpable mental state for the property-value element, the trial court erred by not giving the requested instruction, but the error was harmless and the conviction was affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Shedrick's Argument	Held
Whether a culpable mental state is required for the "value of the property" element of first-degree theft (ORS 164.055(1)(a)).	No culpable mental state required for value; theft statutes and prior appellate precedent (Jones) treat value as not requiring mental-state proof.	ORS 161.095(2) requires proof of a culpable mental state for each material element; at least criminal negligence should attach to the value (a circumstance element).	The court held ORS 161.095(2) applies: a culpable mental state attaches to the property-value element; the trial court erred by not instructing on it.
Whether the trial court's failure to instruct on the culpable mental state was reversible error.	Any instructional error was harmless given the facts (bundle size, bank band, ATM context) and little likelihood the verdict would differ.	Error was prejudicial because jury was not asked to find criminal negligence as to value.	The court held the error was harmless: the evidence showed defendant's failure to be aware of the substantial risk the bundle exceeded $1,000 was a gross deviation from reasonable care.

State v. Simonov, 358 Or. 531 (2016) (discusses "circumstance" elements and applicable culpable mental states)
State v. Jones, 223 Or. App. 611 (2008) (Court of Appeals precedent treating value element as not requiring mental-state proof)
State v. Owen, 369 Or. 288 (2022) (interprets ORS 161.095(2) and requires culpable mental state for material elements unless legislature clearly intended otherwise)
State v. Carlisle, 370 Or. 137 (2022) (recent analysis of when legislative history shows an exception to general culpability statutes)
State v. Irving, 268 Or. 204 (1974) (example where legislative history showed intent to depart from general culpability requirement)
State v. Lewis, 248 Or. 217 (1967) (historical authority treating value as an element for larceny convictions)