State v. Rushton

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Rushton

320 P.3d 672, 260 Or. App. 765, 2014 WL 324572, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 102

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 29, 2014

Docket11CR1036; A150635

StatusPublished

This text of 320 P.3d 672 (State v. Rushton) 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. Rushton, 320 P.3d 672, 260 Or. App. 765, 2014 WL 324572, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 102 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine (Count 2) and unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV) (Count 3).¹ The latter conviction was based on defendant’s theft of a Chevrolet Avalanche from Coos Bay Toyota. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine that sought to exclude evidence of his theft of a vehicle from the same automobile dealership four months earlier. The state concedes, and we agree, that the evidence of the two vehicle thefts was not sufficiently distinctive to make the evidence admissible to prove identity, and the trial court thus erred in denying defendant’s motion. See State v. Johnson, 313 Or 189, 196, 832 P2d 443 (1992) (prior bad acts evidence offered to prove the identity of the perpetrator by modus operandi requires “a very high degree of similarity between the charged and uncharged crimes,” and a distinct methodology “so as to earmark the acts as the handiwork of the accused” (quoting State v. Pinnell, 311 Or 98, 110, 806 P2d 110 (1991))). Although defendant requests that both of his convictions be reversed, he fails to explain why the error was not harmless as to his conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. Accordingly, we reverse and remand defendant’s conviction for UUV and otherwise affirm.

Conviction on Count 3 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; 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 unlawful possession of methamphetamine (Count 2) and unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV) (Count 3).¹ The latter conviction was based on defendant’s theft of a Chevrolet Avalanche from Coos Bay Toyota. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine that sought to exclude evidence of his theft of a vehicle from the same automobile dealership four months earlier. The state concedes, and we agree, that the evidence of the two vehicle thefts was not sufficiently distinctive to make the evidence admissible to prove identity, and the trial court thus erred in denying defendant’s motion. See State v. Johnson, 313 Or 189, 196, 832 P2d 443 (1992) (prior bad acts evidence offered to prove the identity of the perpetrator by modus operandi requires “a very high degree of similarity between the charged and uncharged crimes,” and a distinct methodology “so as to earmark the acts as the handiwork of the accused” (quoting State v. Pinnell, 311 Or 98, 110, 806 P2d 110 (1991))). Although defendant requests that both of his convictions be reversed, he fails to explain why the error was not harmless as to his conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. Accordingly, we reverse and remand defendant’s conviction for UUV and otherwise affirm.

Conviction on Count 3 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 P.3d 672, 260 Or. App. 765, 2014 WL 324572, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rushton-orctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack