Oregon Supreme Ct. - Mar. 12, 2015
by: Frangieringer and Abassos • March 12, 2015 • no comments
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | *Criminal Mischief – Wild Deer Are the Property of | + | *Criminal Mischief – Wild Deer Are the Property of The State |
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| − | '''Criminal Mischief – | + | '''Criminal Mischief – Wild Deer Are the Property of the State |
Under the Criminal Mischief statutes, wild deer are the property of another. To wit, the state has a legal interest in wild deer under ORS 164.305 (defining property of another for the purposes of the Criminal Mischief statutes). Here, the Defendant was convicted of Criminal Mischief II after aiding and abetting his son in shooting “two state-owned deer decoys.” Because 1) “‘wildlife is the property of the state,” 2) “the state can obtain compensation for damage done to wildlife,” and 3) “Oregon courts have long used the metaphor of a trust to describe the state’s sovereign interest in wildlife,” the state has a legal interest in wildlife as used in ORS 164.305. This legal interest is sufficient to show that the deer are “the property of another,” even if the government has not proved that the state owned the property that was damaged. Judgment of the COA and circuit court affirmed. | Under the Criminal Mischief statutes, wild deer are the property of another. To wit, the state has a legal interest in wild deer under ORS 164.305 (defining property of another for the purposes of the Criminal Mischief statutes). Here, the Defendant was convicted of Criminal Mischief II after aiding and abetting his son in shooting “two state-owned deer decoys.” Because 1) “‘wildlife is the property of the state,” 2) “the state can obtain compensation for damage done to wildlife,” and 3) “Oregon courts have long used the metaphor of a trust to describe the state’s sovereign interest in wildlife,” the state has a legal interest in wildlife as used in ORS 164.305. This legal interest is sufficient to show that the deer are “the property of another,” even if the government has not proved that the state owned the property that was damaged. Judgment of the COA and circuit court affirmed. | ||
Revision as of 15:49, March 13, 2015
Criminal Mischief – Wild Deer Are the Property of the State
Under the Criminal Mischief statutes, wild deer are the property of another. To wit, the state has a legal interest in wild deer under ORS 164.305 (defining property of another for the purposes of the Criminal Mischief statutes). Here, the Defendant was convicted of Criminal Mischief II after aiding and abetting his son in shooting “two state-owned deer decoys.” Because 1) “‘wildlife is the property of the state,” 2) “the state can obtain compensation for damage done to wildlife,” and 3) “Oregon courts have long used the metaphor of a trust to describe the state’s sovereign interest in wildlife,” the state has a legal interest in wildlife as used in ORS 164.305. This legal interest is sufficient to show that the deer are “the property of another,” even if the government has not proved that the state owned the property that was damaged. Judgment of the COA and circuit court affirmed. State v. Dickerson, 356 Or 822 (2015).
