State v. Waterman, 511 P.3d 78

On August 20, 2019, Waterman and associates attacked a person (B); B drove toward them and the group damaged his recently purchased car (valued $5,000–$7,000), totaling it. Waterman stabbed the driver-side window multiple times and dented the driver-side door.
Waterman was charged with unlawful use of a weapon (Count 1), first-degree criminal mischief (Count 2, ORS 164.365), and menacing (Count 3). A jury convicted on all counts.
The defense rested without moving for a judgment of acquittal; defense theory was mistaken identity.
During deliberations the jury asked whether Waterman personally had to have caused $1,000+ in damage or whether group damage sufficed; the court responded that the existing instructions were legally sufficient.
On appeal Waterman argued (1) insufficient evidence that his own acts caused $1,000+ in damage, (2) the court erred by not instructing that Waterman personally caused >$1,000, and (3) the court erred by failing to instruct a culpable mental state for the damage-value element.
Court disposition: conviction on Count 2 reversed and remanded (with remand for resentencing); otherwise affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Waterman’s Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Was there sufficient evidence that Waterman personally caused >$1,000 in damage?	Issue not preserved; if reviewed, total damage and Waterman’s substantial acts make it likely his share exceeded $1,000.	Evidence was insufficient to prove Waterman’s own damage exceeded $1,000.	Unpreserved; court declined plain-error review.
Instructional error re amount: Must jury find Waterman personally caused >$1,000, or may group damage suffice?	Group damage suffices; delivered instruction was adequate.	Jury must be instructed that the State prove Waterman personally caused >$1,000.	Preserved; court erred by allowing group-damage theory—reversed Count 2 and remanded because error was not harmless.
Culpable mental state re value: Must jury find a culpable mental state as to the value-element?	Not fully developed; State did not establish which culpable state applies.	Court should have instructed that Waterman was criminally negligent as to value.	Plain error to omit any culpable-mental-state instruction on the value element; parties may litigate on remand which specific state applies.

State v. Lusk, 267 Or App 208 (preservation rule for sufficiency challenges)
State v. Washburn, 53 Or App 258 (statutory requirement that damage "by the defendant" exceed threshold)
State v. Wiggins, 272 Or App 748 (first-degree mischief requires $1,000+ in intentional damage by the defendant)
State v. Lopez-Minjarez, 350 Or 576 (instructional error harmlessness standard)
State v. Owen, 369 Or 288 (recent analysis of culpable mental states)
State v. Pendergraft, 318 Or App 433 (culpable mental-state developments)
State v. Prophet, 318 Or App 330 (culpable mental-state developments)