State v. Swanson, 266 P.3d 45

Defendant Swanson was charged with reckless driving, a misdemeanor.
At trial, Swanson requested jury instructions on careless driving as a lesser-included offense.
The trial court refused; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding only lesser-included crimes may be considered, not lesser-included violations.
The Oregon Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether ORS 136.465 permits lesser-included violations.
ORS 136.465 authorizes conviction of any crime necessarily included in the charged offense, or an attempt to commit such crime.
Historically, the term 'crime' and related definitions have evolved, and later revisions redefined 'crime' to include only offenses punishable by imprisonment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 136.465 covers lesser-included violations	Swanson contends 'crime' includes violations due to historical scope.	State argues ORS 136.465 only allows lesser-included crimes, not violations.	ORS 136.465 applies only to crimes (felonies/misdemeanors), not violations.
Effect of 1971–1973 statutory revisions on 'crime' meaning in ORS 136.465	Defendant asserts 1971/1973 changes do not affect ORS 136.465 outside the Criminal Code.	State argues revisions clarify that 'crime' in ORS 136.465 aligns with the 1971 Code definitions.	The term 'crime' in ORS 136.465 is controlled by the 1971/1973 revisions and excludes violations.

State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (2009) (statutory interpretation governs legislative intent and subsequent amendments)
Easton v. Hurita, 290 Or. 689 (1981) (criminal procedure and decriminalization implications)
Mattila v. Mason, 287 Or. 235 (1979) (procedural protections in decriminalized offenses)
Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. Ct., 280 Or. 95 (1977) (procedural distinctions for violations vs. crimes)
State v. Conger, 319 Or. 484 (1994) (reliance on legislative history in statutory interpretation)
State v. Hitt, 305 Or. 458 (1988) (criminal statute interpretations and definitions)