State ex rel. Juvenile Department of Multnomah County v. Grimm

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State ex rel. Juvenile Department of Multnomah County v. Grimm

856 P.2d 320, 121 Or. App. 667, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 1154

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 14, 1993

Docket74374A; CA A77686

StatusPublished

This text of 856 P.2d 320 (State ex rel. Juvenile Department of Multnomah County v. Grimm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Juvenile Department of Multnomah County v. Grimm, 856 P.2d 320, 121 Or. App. 667, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 1154 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this delinquency proceeding, we affirm the juvenile court’s judgment that child is within the jurisdiction of that court by virtue of acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of arson. ORS 164.325(1). In its dispositional order, the court stated that child “has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge of Arson I.” We agree with child that the court’s judgment is not properly worded. It should not have said that child had been ‘ ‘proved guilty. ’ ’ Rather, it should have found child within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction by virtue of conduct that would constitute the crime of arson if committed by an adult. ORS 419.476(l)(a). We remand the case to the trial court for entry of a judgment consistent with ORS 419.476(1)(a). State ex rel Juv.Dept. v. Cruz, 111 Or App 216, 826 P2d 30 (1992).

Jurisdiction affirmed; remanded for entry of corrected judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

In this delinquency proceeding, we affirm the juvenile court’s judgment that child is within the jurisdiction of that court by virtue of acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of arson. ORS 164.325(1). In its dispositional order, the court stated that child “has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge of Arson I.” We agree with child that the court’s judgment is not properly worded. It should not have said that child had been ‘ ‘proved guilty. ’ ’ Rather, it should have found child within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction by virtue of conduct that would constitute the crime of arson if committed by an adult. ORS 419.476(l)(a). We remand the case to the trial court for entry of a judgment consistent with ORS 419.476(1)(a). State ex rel Juv.Dept. v. Cruz, 111 Or App 216, 826 P2d 30 (1992).

Jurisdiction affirmed; remanded for entry of corrected judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

856 P.2d 320, 121 Or. App. 667, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 1154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-juvenile-department-of-multnomah-county-v-grimm-orctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack