State v. Tecle, 396 P.3d 955

Defendant opened bank accounts in person using false Social Security numbers and addresses; bank employees entered that false information into the banks’ computer systems.
Defendant activated ATM cards and deposited worthless checks; banks made funds available per federal rules before checks cleared.
Third parties (not defendant) withdrew funds using the ATM cards before banks discovered the fraud, causing bank losses.
Defendant was convicted on counts of identity theft, second-degree theft, and computer crime (ORS 164.377(2)).
At trial, defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on the computer-crime counts arguing he never directly accessed or manipulated the banks’ computers; the trial court denied the motion and the jury convicted on all counts.
On appeal, the court evaluated whether "use" of a computer in ORS 164.377(2) requires direct access/manipulation and whether one count was mislabeled (Count 10).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether "use" in ORS 164.377(2) covers providing false information to an agent who then enters it into a computer	State: "Use" includes indirectly carrying out fraud by means of a victim's computer system; defendant made banks' computers instrumental to his fraud	Defendant: "Use" requires direct access or manipulation of the computer/system (i.e., hacking or direct entry)	Court: "Use" in subsection (2) requires direct access/manipulation consistent with the statute's legislative history targeting hackers; acquitted on computer-crime counts (reversed convictions)
Whether Count 10 was properly entered as computer crime rather than identity theft	State: (conceded) Count 10 should be identity theft as charged	Defendant: Count 10 was charged as identity theft in indictment and verdict form	Court: Agreed with concession; reversed Count 10 and remanded to enter identity-theft conviction

State v. Nascimento, 360 Or. 28 (Or. 2016) (legislative history shows statute aimed at unauthorized access by hackers)
State v. Osborne, 242 Or. App. 85 (Or. Ct. App. 2011) (examined "use" in a different context where defendant physically employed a weapon)
State v. Cloutier, 351 Or. 68 (Or. 2011) (caution against relying on dictionary definitions without context)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (Or. 2009) (statutory interpretation requires text, context, legislative history)
State v. Perry, 165 Or. App. 342 (Or. Ct. App. 2000) (historical context relevant to statute interpretation)
State v. Hunt, 270 Or. App. 206 (Or. Ct. App. 2015) (review standard when acquittal denial centers on statutory meaning)
State v. Cunningham, 320 Or. 47 (Or. 1994) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)