State v. Rowland

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Rowland

111 P.3d 802, 199 Or. App. 414, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 541

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 4, 2005

Docket02FE1181ST; A121138

StatusPublished

This text of 111 P.3d 802 (State v. Rowland) 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. Rowland, 111 P.3d 802, 199 Or. App. 414, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 541 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for one count of identity theft, ORS 165.800, and one count of theft in the second degree, ORS 164.045. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the identify theft charge because the evidence showed only that he gave a false name to a police officer. Defendant argues that, in light of our opinion in State v. Fields, 191 Or App 127, 79 P3d 915 (2003), evidence that he merely misidentified himself to the police is insufficient to prove that he committed that offense. The state agrees that, in light of Fields, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion. We accept the state’s concession.

Judgment of conviction for identity theft reversed; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for one count of identity theft, ORS 165.800, and one count of theft in the second degree, ORS 164.045. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the identify theft charge because the evidence showed only that he gave a false name to a police officer. Defendant argues that, in light of our opinion in State v. Fields, 191 Or App 127, 79 P3d 915 (2003), evidence that he merely misidentified himself to the police is insufficient to prove that he committed that offense. The state agrees that, in light of Fields, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion. We accept the state’s concession.

Judgment of conviction for identity theft reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 P.3d 802, 199 Or. App. 414, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rowland-orctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack