State v. Tilly, 346 P.3d 567

Defendant, a caregiver at an adult foster home, was tried by bench trial for multiple sex offenses after resident A (22) alleged repeated sexual acts by him; charges included alternative theories: forcible compulsion and incapacity to consent by reason of mental defect.
After coworkers discussed his termination, A disclosed to staff and in a CARES forensic interview that “Little Matt” put his penis in her vagina, in her mouth, touched her breasts, and that it happened “lots.” Her demeanor and responses in the 35‑minute CARES interview were childlike and limited.
A’s trial testimony and cross‑examination showed rudimentary, sometimes inconsistent, understanding of sex, marriage, and babies; she often gave halting or nonverbal answers. The facility provided 24/7 care for developmentally disabled residents.
Defendant admitted to detectives to a single sexual encounter (described as consensual by him) and expressed that he believed A could not understand sexual matters.
The trial court denied defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on all counts and convicted him of counts requiring incapacity (Counts 2, 4, 8, 10) and two counts premised on forcible compulsion (Counts 7, 9). Counts 7 and 9 were later merged with 8 and 10 respectively.
On appeal, the court reviewed whether evidence was legally sufficient to prove (1) A’s incapacity to consent by reason of mental defect, and (2) forcible compulsion for the two first‑degree sexual abuse counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to show A was "mentally defective" (incapable of appraising her conduct) for Counts 2,4,8,10	State: CARES interview, facility evidence, A’s testimony, and defendant’s admissions show A lacked capacity to appraise sexual conduct	Def: A’s ability to identify and describe sexual acts and express refusal shows capacity to consent	Held: Sufficient evidence—court affirmed convictions based on incapacity (Counts 2,4,8,10)
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove forcible compulsion for Counts 7,9 (first‑degree sexual abuse)	State: caregiver status, incident in victim’s bedroom, and evidence of A’s vulnerability support forcible compulsion inference	Def: No evidence of physical force beyond contact inherent in the alleged sexual acts; no causal nexus to compel submission	Held: Insufficient evidence of forcible compulsion—convictions on Counts 7 and 9 reversed and acquittals entered; remand for resentencing

State v. Marshall, 350 Or. 208 (defining "forcible compulsion" and requiring physical force beyond contact inherent in the sexual act)
State v. Reed, 339 Or. 239 (interpretation of "mentally defective" — incapacity to appraise the nature of one’s conduct)
State v. Cunningham, 320 Or. 47 (standard of review for denial of motion for judgment of acquittal)
State v. Link, 346 Or. 187 (merger/harmless‑error principle when alternate charging theories yield mixed sufficiency)
State v. Barteaux, 212 Or. App. 118 (defendant’s belief about victim’s incapacity can support inference of victim’s inability to appraise sexual conduct)
PGE v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 317 Or. 606 (methodology for statutory interpretation applied in Reed)