State v. A. O.

328 Or. App. 187
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedSeptember 13, 2023
DocketA178476
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 328 Or. App. 187 (State v. A. O.) 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 v. A. O., 328 Or. App. 187 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). Submitted August 4, reversed and remanded September 13, 2023

In the Matter of A. O., a Youth. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. A. O., Appellant. Malheur County Circuit Court 21JU05711; A178476

Erin K. Landis, Judge. Christa Obold Eshleman and Youth, Rights & Justice filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. 188 State v. A. O.

PER CURIAM Youth appeals a judgment finding him within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because he committed acts that, if he were an adult, would constitute minor in posses- sion of alcohol, a Class B violation. ORS 471.430. The court found youth within its jurisdiction after applying a “pre- ponderance of the evidence” standard of proof. Although a “violation proceeding” conducted pursuant to ORS 153.076 requires that the state need only prove “the charged viola- tion by a preponderance of the evidence,” the parties agree that that is not the case in a juvenile delinquency proceed- ing. Moreover, the parties agree that the trial court plainly erred in applying the incorrect standard. We agree and accept the state’s concession. Under ORS 419C.400(2), “[t]he facts alleged in the petition showing the youth to be within the jurisdiction of the court as provided in ORS 419C.005, unless admitted, must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.” There is no provision in the juvenile code for applying a lesser standard where the act committed by the youth otherwise would be considered a violation rather than a crime. We exercise our discretion to correct the error, given the gravity of the error. Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

State v. A. O.
Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2023

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
328 Or. App. 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-a-o-orctapp-2023.