State v. M. A. W.-S.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. M. A. W.-S.

507 P.3d 1291, 319 Or. App. 426

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 27, 2022

DocketA172208

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 507 P.3d 1291 (State v. M. A. W.-S.) 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. M. A. W.-S., 507 P.3d 1291, 319 Or. App. 426 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

Argued and submitted May 5, 2021, reversed and remanded April 27, 2022

In the Matter of M. A. W.-S., a Youth. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. M. A. W.-S., Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 19JU01517; A172208 507 P3d 1291

Michele C. Rini, Judge pro tempore. Lindsey Burrows argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was O’Connor Weber LLC. Patrick M. Ebbett, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before Mooney, Presiding Judge, and Kamins, Judge, and DeVore, Senior Judge.* PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded.

______________ * Kamins, J., vice DeHoog, J. pro tempore. Cite as 319 Or App 426 (2022) 427

PER CURIAM The juvenile court found youth within its jurisdic- tion for conduct that, if committed by an adult, would consti- tute riot. ORS 166.015 (“A person commits the crime of riot if while participating with five or more other persons the per- son engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.”). Youth assigns error to the juvenile court’s determination that no culpable mental state applies to the element of “participating with five or more other persons.” In light of subsequent case law, the juvenile court erred. The element is material and necessarily requires a culpable mental state. See State v. Owen, 369 Or 288, 310, 505 P3d 953 (2022); State v. Prophet, 318 Or App 330, 342, 507 P3d 735 (2022). Reversed and remanded.

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

Argued and submitted May 5, 2021, reversed and remanded April 27, 2022

In the Matter of M. A. W.-S., a Youth. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. M. A. W.-S., Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 19JU01517; A172208 507 P3d 1291

Michele C. Rini, Judge pro tempore. Lindsey Burrows argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was O’Connor Weber LLC. Patrick M. Ebbett, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before Mooney, Presiding Judge, and Kamins, Judge, and DeVore, Senior Judge.* PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded.

______________ * Kamins, J., vice DeHoog, J. pro tempore. Cite as 319 Or App 426 (2022) 427

PER CURIAM The juvenile court found youth within its jurisdic- tion for conduct that, if committed by an adult, would consti- tute riot. ORS 166.015 (“A person commits the crime of riot if while participating with five or more other persons the per- son engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.”). Youth assigns error to the juvenile court’s determination that no culpable mental state applies to the element of “participating with five or more other persons.” In light of subsequent case law, the juvenile court erred. The element is material and necessarily requires a culpable mental state. See State v. Owen, 369 Or 288, 310, 505 P3d 953 (2022); State v. Prophet, 318 Or App 330, 342, 507 P3d 735 (2022). Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 P.3d 1291, 319 Or. App. 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-m-a-w-s-orctapp-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack