State v. Bias

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Bias

283 P.3d 463, 251 Or. App. 524, 2012 WL 3115190, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 944

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 1, 2012

Docket081847FE; A140022

StatusPublished

This text of 283 P.3d 463 (State v. Bias) 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. Bias, 283 P.3d 463, 251 Or. App. 524, 2012 WL 3115190, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 944 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In State v. Bias, 241 Or App 647, 250 P3d 974 (2011), we reversed defendant’s conviction on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Relying on our decision in State v. Rainoldi, 236 Or App 129, 235 P3d 710 (2010), we concluded that the trial court should have instructed the jury that the state was required to prove a culpable mental state with respect to defendant’s status as a felon. The Oregon Supreme Court has since reversed our decision in Rainoldi and held that “ORS 166.270 exhibits a clear legislative intent to dispense with the culpable mental state requirement as to the element that a defendant ‘has been convicted of a felony.’” State v. Rainoldi, 351 Or 486, 506, 268 P3d 568 (2011).

In the wake of its decision in Rainoldi, the Supreme Court allowed the state’s petition for review of our decision in Bias, vacated that decision, and remanded for reconsideration. On remand, we now conclude, in light of the Supreme Court’s superseding construction of ORS 166.270, that the trial court did not commit instructional error, and we therefore affirm defendant’s conviction.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

In State v. Bias, 241 Or App 647, 250 P3d 974 (2011), we reversed defendant’s conviction on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Relying on our decision in State v. Rainoldi, 236 Or App 129, 235 P3d 710 (2010), we concluded that the trial court should have instructed the jury that the state was required to prove a culpable mental state with respect to defendant’s status as a felon. The Oregon Supreme Court has since reversed our decision in Rainoldi and held that “ORS 166.270 exhibits a clear legislative intent to dispense with the culpable mental state requirement as to the element that a defendant ‘has been convicted of a felony.’” State v. Rainoldi, 351 Or 486, 506, 268 P3d 568 (2011).

In the wake of its decision in Rainoldi, the Supreme Court allowed the state’s petition for review of our decision in Bias, vacated that decision, and remanded for reconsideration. On remand, we now conclude, in light of the Supreme Court’s superseding construction of ORS 166.270, that the trial court did not commit instructional error, and we therefore affirm defendant’s conviction.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 P.3d 463, 251 Or. App. 524, 2012 WL 3115190, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bias-orctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack