State v. Schmidt

273 P.3d 333, 248 Or. App. 475, 2012 WL 762119, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 201
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedFebruary 29, 2012
DocketD101082M, C090423CR; A145747
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 273 P.3d 333 (State v. Schmidt) 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. Schmidt, 273 P.3d 333, 248 Or. App. 475, 2012 WL 762119, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 201 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of two counts of violating a stalking protective order based on two e-mails that defendant sent to his former girlfriend. ORS 163.750. On appeal, the state concedes that the evidence was insufficient to prove that defendant’s contacts “created reasonable apprehension regarding the personal safety of a person protected by the order,” ORS 163.750(l)(c), a required element of the offense where the contact is “[s]ending or making written or electronic communications in any form to the other person,” ORS 163.730(3)(d). We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse the convictions.

Reversed.

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

Related

State v. SCHMIDT (PC)
273 P.3d 333 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 P.3d 333, 248 Or. App. 475, 2012 WL 762119, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-schmidt-orctapp-2012.