State v. Buller

571 P.2d 1263, 31 Or. App. 889, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2085
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedDecember 5, 1977
DocketB42-124, CA 8929
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 571 P.2d 1263 (State v. Buller) 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. Buller, 571 P.2d 1263, 31 Or. App. 889, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2085 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

*[891] SCHWAB, C. J.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of sexual abuse in the second degree, ORS 163.415(1), which provides:

“A person commits the crime of sexual abuse in the second degree if he subjects another person to sexual contact * * *.
* * * * »

Sexual contact is defined by ORS 163.305(7) as:

" 'Sexual contact’ means any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person not married to the actor or causing such person to touch the sexual or other intimate parts of the actor for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of either party.”

Defendant makes four assignments of error, but they all deal with but one issue: Can an intentional touching of buttocks through clothing constitute a touching of "intimate parts”? In Proposed Oregon Criminal Code 122, Commentary, §§ 115 and 116 (1970), the Criminal Law Revision Commission stated:

"* * * [T]he contact need not be directly with the person’s body; it is sufficient if the defendant touches the victim’s sexual or intimate parts through clothing * * * ”

It also stated at 122:

"The inclusion of the words 'or other intimate parts’ does not limit the touching to genitalia but is intended to include genitalia, breasts and whatever anatomical areas the trier of fact deems 'intimate’ in the particular cases which arise. Thus the ultimate decision of 'intimate’ parts is left to the community sense of decency, propriety and morality.”

The evidence in this case was sufficient to create a jury question as to whether the victim’s buttocks were "intimate parts.” Cf. People v. Thomas, 46 USLW 2238 (— App Div2d — (New York City 1977).

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Hurtado
558 P.3d 1267 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2024)
State v. Dibala
984 P.2d 302 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1999)
Jordan v. Gardner
986 F.2d 1521 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
State v. Camarillo
794 P.2d 850 (Washington Supreme Court, 1990)
In re A.B.
556 A.2d 645 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1989)
Matter of AB
556 A.2d 645 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1989)
State v. Woodley
760 P.2d 884 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1988)
State v. Woodley
746 P.2d 227 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1987)
Parker v. State
406 So. 2d 1036 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1981)
State v. Johnson
624 P.2d 213 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1981)
In Re the Welfare of Adams
601 P.2d 995 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1979)
State v. Turner
575 P.2d 1007 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
571 P.2d 1263, 31 Or. App. 889, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-buller-orctapp-1977.