288 P.3d 1012
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant was convicted of unlawfully using a weapon under ORS 166.220(l)(a) after a bench trial.
- Defendant admitted he intended to threaten A with a crowbar, but argued he did not intend to injure him with the crowbar.
- The trial court concluded the state failed to prove intent to assault, but held that 'use' can include threatening with a dangerous weapon.
- The defense argued ORS 166.220(l)(a) requires intent to physically injure, and a threat alone does not satisfy the statute.
- On appeal, the issue was whether the legislature intended any threat with a weapon to constitute 'use' under ORS 166.220(l)(a), given its 1917 historical context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 'use' include threats under ORS 166.220(l)(a)? | State argues 'use' includes threats and possession with intent to use to menace. | Armstrong contends 'use' requires intent to injure, so mere threat fails. | Yes; 'use' includes threat of immediate use. |
| Is there error in convicting without proof of intent to injure? | State contends threat suffices under historical meaning of 'use'. | Armstrong argues absence of intent to assault defeats the statute. | Conviction affirmed; threat satisfies 'use' under the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Osborne, 242 Or App 85 (2011) (uses or attempts to use a dangerous weapon includes threats)
- State v. Anlauf, 164 Or App 672 (2000) (assumes 'use' includes threats under ORS 166.220(l)(a))
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Taylor, 119 Or App 276 (1993) (use of weapon described as threats/assaults in context of statutes)
- State v. Linthwaite, 295 Or 162 (1983) (Supreme Court recognition of broad meaning of 'use' in weapon statutes)