Oregon Supreme Ct - February 4, 2016
by: Aalvarez • February 11, 2016 • no comments
UUV Requires a Mental State of Knowledge Because “Without the Owner’s Consent” is Part of the Conduct UUV Criminalizes, NOT a Circumstance
In a prosecution for Unlawful Use of a Vehicle, it is reversible error to instruct the jury that the element “without the owner’s consent,” requires a mental state of criminal negligence, not knowledge. Unlike “circumstance” elements of an offense, which require a mental state of criminal negligence, “conduct” elements require a mental state of knowledge or intent. To determine whether an element constitutes “conduct” or “circumstance,” courts must examine the role of the element in the offense and its relationship to other elements. To interpret the UUV statute as requiring only proof that a passenger was criminally negligent as to whether the owner of the vehicle in which she rode consented to that use would subject a person of “naïve trust” to criminal liability for a felony. “The severity of that consequence suggests that the legislature did not contemplate that mere criminal negligence would suffice to establish criminal liability for UUV.” In contrast to the state’s interpretation, “without the owner’s consent” goes directly to the heart of the UUV statute and comprises the offense’s “essential character,” the use of the vehicle without the owner’s consent. As such, lack of consent is a “conduct” element and the minimum mental state required for it is knowledge. The decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court is affirmed. State v. Simonov, 358 Or. 531 (2016)
