348 P.3d 290
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant convicted of failure to report as a sex offender under former ORS 181.599(1)(d) (2011) (renumbered as ORS 181.812(l)(d) (2013)).
- Defendant had registered in Oregon using his grandfather’s address since Oct 22, 2008, with periodic in-person reports showing the same address.
- He was arrested Sept 5, 2012 for failure to report and released Sept 6, 2012.
- On Oct 3, 2012, Defendant disclosed to Sickon that he lived with his grandfather but would be staying with his father at a different address; he admitted not staying at the grandfather’s house since Sept 6.
- The information alleged failure to report within 10 days of a change of residence after moving; the state presented evidence that he had not been at the grandfather’s house for 27 days prior to reporting.
- The appellate court ultimately held that, after amendments to the statute, venue concerns from Depeche are no longer controlling and a rational jury could find timing met based on the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must the state prove the exact date of moving out? | Depeche requires precise timing. | Exact move-out date is required to prove timing. | No; timing sufficient with move-out evidence and delayed reporting. |
| Do 2011 amendments eliminate venue-based timing issues for this offense? | Depeche venue reasoning controls. | Venue is still essential to prove timing. | Yes; venue is no longer a required element under the amended statutes. |
| Was there sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find timing met? | Evidence showed he moved and failed to report timely. | Exact timing of move-out was not proven. | Yes; rational jury could find timing satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Massei, 247 Or App 30 (2011) (standard for reviewing denial of acquittal; any rational trier could find elements proven)
- State v. Paragon, 195 Or App 265 (2004) (guides sufficiency standard in acquittal review)
- State v. Depeche, 242 Or App 155 (2011) (venue-focused interpretation of former ORS 181.599; later legislatively superseded)
- State v. Mills, 354 Or 350 (2013) (venue no longer a material element; must be raised before trial)
- State v. Cox, 219 Or App 319 (2008) (defined change of residence for earlier statute version)
- State v. Hiner, 269 Or App 447 (2015) (construes former ORS 181.599(l)(d) to require reporting only after acquiring a new residence)