State v. Cook
This text of 628 P.2d 787 (State v. Cook) 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.
Opinion
The state appeals from an order dismissing a Uniform Traffic Citation. We reverse.
Defendant was charged in district court by a Uniform Traffic Citation which described her offense as "Misuse of O.D.L (False Info to Police Officer).” Prior to trial, defendant moved to set aside the complaint. Defendant argued that the complaint designated two offenses in that it could not be readily understood from the language used whether she had been charged with "Misuse of License” or with "Furnishing False Name to a Police Officer.” The court allowed the motion on the ground that, while the citation could be read as charging only a violation of ORS 482.610(6),1 it could also be read as duplicitously charging both a violation of that subsection and a violation of some other subsection of ORS 482.610, or at least as duplicitously charging either that defendant gave false information to a police officer by displaying a license which was not her own or that she gave false information to the officer in some other prohibited fashion.
[650]*650The state appeals, pursuant to ORS 484.170(2),2 contending that the citation is not duplicitous but charged a violation of ORS 482.610(6) with sufficient specificity to satisfy the standards established by State v. Waggoner, 228 Or 334, 365 P2d 291 (1961). We agree.
In Waggoner, 228 Or at 337, a traffic citation was held sufficient even if "* * * a person defending against one might have to make some reasonable inquiry of the arresting officer or of some other person in order to know exactly what offense is being charged.” We think the Waggoner "reasonable inquiry” principle should apply not only to the question of what offense is charged, but also, as here, to the question of whether more than one offense is charged. See State v. Atkinson, 28 Or App 909, 562 P2d 978 (1977).
On application of this principle we conclude that defendant could, on reasonable inquiry, determine that the citation charged a violation of ORS 482.610(6). Defendant acknowledges that the statute is commonly referred to as the "misuse statute.”3 Therefore, we believe that defendant could, upon reasonable inquiry, determine that the designation on the citation, "Misuse of O.D.L.,” referred to the statute generally, and the parenthetical notation "False Info to Police Officer” referred to the specific subsection violated*
Reversed and remanded for trial.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
628 P.2d 787, 52 Or. App. 647, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cook-orctapp-1981.