State v. Davis

225 P.3d 150, 233 Or. App. 506, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 62
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Davis. Read the opinion of the Court — 216 Or. App. 456
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided February 3, 2010·No. 064367; A138369·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, ORS 475.886; possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894; theft in the first degree, ORS 164.055; and theft in the second degree, ORS 164.045.

On appeal, defendant argues that the state was required to prove that defendant had a culpable mental state with respect to the pertinent elements of the theft charges. More specifically, defendant argues that the state was required to prove that defendant actually knew the value of the stolen merchandise was at least the requisite amount required by the statutes: $200 for theft in the first degree, ORS 164.055(l)(a), and $50 for theft in the second degree, ORS 164.045(l)(b).

The state responds that we explicitly rejected defendant’s interpretation of the theft statutes in State v. Jones, 223 Or App 611, 196 P3d 97 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009). The state is correct, and we therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

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

State v. Davis, 225 P.3d 150, 233 Or. App. 506, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 62 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

225 P.3d 150 (State v. Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Jones
196 P.3d 97 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2008)