[DV_listserv] Couple more legal updates

[Domestic Violence issues]

State v. Nix - The Supreme Court affirms the Appeals Court ruling from August 1, 2012.

Date Filed: 08-07-2014
Case #: S060875
Landau, J. for the Court; Balmer, C.J.; Kistler, Walters, Linder, and Baldwin, Justices.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S060875.pdf

HOLDING:  "Victim" as used in ORS 161.067, Oregon's "anti-merger" statute, is determined by reference to the underlying substantive statute that is violated. Ct. holds that an animal is a "victim" under ORS 161.067.

The issue in this case is whether under Oregon's "anti-merger" statute, ORS 161.067, an animal constitutes a "victim." Defendant was found guilty of 20 counts of second-degree animal neglect. The trial court merged these offenses into one count, because they believed an animal did not constitute a "victim." The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for resentencing, concluding that animals do constitute "victims" under the statute. The Court of Appeals explained that "victim" is determined by reference to the underlying substantive statute that defendant violated. In this case, the second-degree animal neglect statute is used to protect animals. This Court agreed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded for entry of separate convictions on each guilty verdict for a violation of ORS 167.325 and for resentencing.

[Summarized by: Samantha Stocklein]


State v. Ziska/Garza -This is a really good one, too!!

Date Filed: 08-07-2014
Case #: S060946
Landau, J.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S060946.pdf

Holding: A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if he uses that weapon to threaten the victim even without any intent to harm the victim.

Defendants Ziska and Garza were both charged with unlawful use of a weapon when they used a crowbar and a knife, respectively, to threaten individuals in their vicinity.  The trial court convicted both Defendants and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Defendants argued that the lower courts committed an error by giving the word "use" too broad a definition.  They argued that the Oregon legislature intended the word "use" in the unlawful use of a weapon statute to have a narrower meaning.  After consulting the statutory text and the legislative history, and after applying common maxims of statutory construction, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the meaning of the word "use" encompassed using the weapon to threaten with no actual intent to harm.  Affirmed.

[Summarized by: Michael Mickelson]

*****CONFIDENTIALITY  NOTICE*****

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. 

************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/dv_listserv/attachments/20140808/7f37e41e/attachment.html>