State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Erwin

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Erwin

899 P.2d 758, 135 Or. App. 694, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 1087

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 26, 1995

Docket94-03-5765-J; CA A85353

StatusPublished

This text of 899 P.2d 758 (State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Erwin) 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. Erwin, 899 P.2d 758, 135 Or. App. 694, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 1087 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal by child from an order finding him within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court by reason of having committed the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135(1)(a). ORS 419C.005. He argues that the Juvenile Department did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the allegation that he knowingly rode in a stolen vehicle. We review de novo. ORS 419A.200(5).

The evidence most favorable to the Department on the issue of child’s knowledge is as follows: Child was a passenger in a stolen pickup that Hatfield drove from Ontario to Bend. In Bend, child’s girlfriend asked him if the vehicle was stolen. He replied that Hatfield had told him that it belonged to Hatfield’s grandfather. Although there is evidence that child was familiar with the members of Hatfield’s “immediate” family, and that no one in Hatfield’s “immediate family” owned a vehicle like the one in which child rode, there is no persuasive evidence that child knew what vehicles Hatfield’s grandfather owned or whether the grandfather was considered a member of Hatfield’s “immediate” family. We agree with child’s argument that the Department has not met its burden of proof.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal by child from an order finding him within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court by reason of having committed the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135(1)(a). ORS 419C.005. He argues that the Juvenile Department did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the allegation that he knowingly rode in a stolen vehicle. We review de novo. ORS 419A.200(5).

The evidence most favorable to the Department on the issue of child’s knowledge is as follows: Child was a passenger in a stolen pickup that Hatfield drove from Ontario to Bend. In Bend, child’s girlfriend asked him if the vehicle was stolen. He replied that Hatfield had told him that it belonged to Hatfield’s grandfather. Although there is evidence that child was familiar with the members of Hatfield’s “immediate” family, and that no one in Hatfield’s “immediate family” owned a vehicle like the one in which child rode, there is no persuasive evidence that child knew what vehicles Hatfield’s grandfather owned or whether the grandfather was considered a member of Hatfield’s “immediate” family. We agree with child’s argument that the Department has not met its burden of proof.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

899 P.2d 758, 135 Or. App. 694, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 1087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-juvenile-department-v-erwin-orctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack