State v. Ziska / Garza, 334 P.3d 964

Defendants Ziska and Garza were convicted of unlawful use of a weapon (ORS 166.220(1)(a)) and menacing (ORS 163.190) after separate incidents involving a crowbar and a folding knife.
Ziska argued he intended only to threaten with the crowbar, not injure, so there was no unlawful use.
Garza argued that merely threatening to use a knife cannot satisfy ‘use’ under ORS 166.220(1)(a).
Trial courts and Court of Appeals rejected the narrow interpretation and held that ‘use’ can include threatening to use a weapon unlawfully.
The Oregon Supreme Court granted review to interpret the meaning of ‘use’ in ORS 166.220(1)(a).
Court ultimately affirmed the Court of Appeals and circuit court judgments, upholding the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Meaning of ‘use’ in ORS 166.220(1)(a)	State (plaintiff)	Ziska/Garza	‘Use’ includes threatening to use a weapon
Historical context of ORS 166.220(1)(a)	Statute covers threats and actual use	Narrow interpretation favored by defendants	Text and history support broad meaning of ‘use’
Effect of 1985 amendments	Amendments did not narrow the meaning	Amendments suggest narrowing	Amendments do not alter the meaning of ‘use’

State v. Delgado, 298 Or 395 (1984) (relevance to preexisting weapons statutes and possession vs. use)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009) (statutory construction and contextual approach)
PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 (1993) (textual analysis in statutory interpretation)
State v. Cloutier, 351 Or 68 (2011) (context determines meaning of terms)
Fries, 344 Or 541 (2008) (contextual interpretation of statutory terms)
Kellar, 349 Or 626 (2011) (avoid redundancy in reading statutes)
Vannatta v. Keisling, 324 Or 514 (1997) (use of time-relevant dictionary to define terms)
Weldon v. Bd. of Lic. Pro Counselors and Therapists, 353 Or 85 (2012) (historical version analysis in statutory interpretation)
Harris and Harris, 349 Or 393 (2010) (legislative history considered in construction)