State v. Roselle

221 P.3d 762, 232 Or. App. 212, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 1807

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: November 18, 2009
• Docket: 03CR2054MI; A132261
• Status: Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged with “interference with agricultural operations” under ORS 164.887. He moved to dismiss the charge on the grounds that the statute on its face violates the free speech, free assembly, and equality guarantees of the Oregon and United States constitutions. The trial court denied the motion, and defendant entered a conditional plea of no contest under ORS 135.335(3), reserving the right to withdraw the plea if the appeal is successful. On appeal, defendant renews his claims that ORS 164.887 is facially unconstitutional.

In State v. Borowski, 231 Or App 511, 220 P3d 100 (2009), we determined a number of consolidated appeals raising the same contentions about the constitutionality of ORS 164.887. We held that the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the unconstitutional portion of the statute cannot be severed from the remainder of the law under ORS 174.040. In light of our holding in Borowski, the trial court erred in failing to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge.

Reversed.