State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Cruz

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Cruz

43 P.3d 443, 180 Or. App. 389, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 477

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 27, 2002

DocketJ99-0441; A110181

StatusPublished

This text of 43 P.3d 443 (State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Cruz) 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 v. Cruz, 43 P.3d 443, 180 Or. App. 389, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 477 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Youth appeals an order finding him to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for committing acts that, if done by an adult, would constitute the offenses of resisting arrest and giving false information to a police officer for a citation. We write only to address youth’s third assignment of error, which challenges the sufficiency of the evidence pertaining to the false information charge. The state concedes that it did not prove that youth knew that the officer was requesting youth to provide identifying information for purposes of issuing him a citation, which is an element of the offense. ORS 162.385(1); State v. Jaha, 118 Or App 496, 501, 848 P2d 622 (1993). On de novo review of the record, we agree and accept the state’s concession.

Reversed as to trial court’s finding of jurisdiction based on an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of giving false information to a police officer for ¿ citation and remanded for entry of amended order of commitment; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Youth appeals an order finding him to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for committing acts that, if done by an adult, would constitute the offenses of resisting arrest and giving false information to a police officer for a citation. We write only to address youth’s third assignment of error, which challenges the sufficiency of the evidence pertaining to the false information charge. The state concedes that it did not prove that youth knew that the officer was requesting youth to provide identifying information for purposes of issuing him a citation, which is an element of the offense. ORS 162.385(1); State v. Jaha, 118 Or App 496, 501, 848 P2d 622 (1993). On de novo review of the record, we agree and accept the state’s concession.

Reversed as to trial court’s finding of jurisdiction based on an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of giving false information to a police officer for ¿ citation and remanded for entry of amended order of commitment; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 P.3d 443, 180 Or. App. 389, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-juvenile-department-v-cruz-orctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack