State v. Read

Lincoln County Circuit Court, Oregon

State v. Read

377 P.3d 687, 279 Or. App. 174, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 757

CourtLincoln County Circuit Court, Oregon

DecidedJune 22, 2016

Docket141367; A158650

StatusPublished

This text of 377 P.3d 687 (State v. Read) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Lincoln County Circuit Court, Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Read, 377 P.3d 687, 279 Or. App. 174, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 757 (Or. Super. Ct. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct under ORS 166.025(l)(b) for creating “unreasonable noise” in the Lincoln County courthouse near the trial court administrator’s office. On appeal, she argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that her speech was unreasonable based on its volume, duration, and location, as required under our case law. See State v. Rich, 218 Or App 642, 647, 180 P3d 744 (2008) (holding that ORS 166.025(1)(b) is “a classic time, place, or manner law,” and that, “[i]f the regulated noise happens to be speech, then enforcement is unconstitutional only if the enforcement is directed toward the speech’s content and not its noncom-municative elements”). The state concedes that the evidence is legally insufficient to satisfy the standard articulated in Rich, and that the conviction must be reversed. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse the conviction.

Conviction for disorderly conduct reversed; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct under ORS 166.025(l)(b) for creating “unreasonable noise” in the Lincoln County courthouse near the trial court administrator’s office. On appeal, she argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that her speech was unreasonable based on its volume, duration, and location, as required under our case law. See State v. Rich, 218 Or App 642, 647, 180 P3d 744 (2008) (holding that ORS 166.025(1)(b) is “a classic time, place, or manner law,” and that, “[i]f the regulated noise happens to be speech, then enforcement is unconstitutional only if the enforcement is directed toward the speech’s content and not its noncom-municative elements”). The state concedes that the evidence is legally insufficient to satisfy the standard articulated in Rich, and that the conviction must be reversed. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse the conviction.

Conviction for disorderly conduct reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 P.3d 687, 279 Or. App. 174, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-read-orcclincoln-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack