State v. Porter

768 P.2d 940, 95 Or. App. 373, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 206
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided February 22, 1989·No. M87-1906; CA A47698·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged with failure to perform the duties of a driver under ORS 811.700(1)(c).1 He démurred to the complaint. The trial court allowed the demurrer “on the ground that ORS 811.700(1) (c) is unconstitutionally vague.” The state appeals from the judgment on the demurrer, pursuant to ORS 135.660.

The statute is not unconstitutionally vague. The requirement that a person take “reasonable steps” to notify the person in charge of damaged property of the fact that it has been damaged articulates what is required sufficiently. It is left to the finder of fact to determine only whether the steps taken to provide the information to the owner or person in charge met that standard. See State v. Wojohn, 204 Or 84, 282 P2d 675 (1955); see also State v. Sarriugarte, 66 Or App 406, 674 P2d 82 (1984).

Reversed and remanded.

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

State v. Porter, 768 P.2d 940, 95 Or. App. 373, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 206 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

768 P.2d 940 (State v. Porter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Campbell
329 Or. App. 404 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2023)
State v. Pruitt
839 P.2d 735 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1992)