Date: 10-24-2024

Case Style: State of Arizona v. Richard Darrel Eggers

Case Number:

Judge: Not Available

Court: Circuit Court, Marion County, Oregon

Plaintiff's Attorney: Marion County, Oregon District Attorney's Office

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Salem Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Description:

Salem, Oregon criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with felony possession of a firearm.

ORS 166.255 provides, in part, that "it is unlawful for a person to knowingly possess a firearm or ammunition if *** [t]he person has been convicted of a qualifying misdemeanor and, at the time of the offense, the person was *** [a] family or household member of the victim of the offense." For purposes of that prohibition, a "qualifying misdemeanor" is one that "has, as an element of the offense, the use or attempted use of physical force." ORS 166.255(3Xe).

The misdemeanor crime of harassment-set out at ORS 166.065-provides that one, among many, ways a person can commit the crime is "if the person intentionally *** [h]arasses or annoys another person by * * * [subjecting such other person to offensive physical contact." ORS 166.065 (1)(a)(A). At issue in this case is whether the "offensive physical contact" element of harassment constitutes "physical force" for purposes of ORS 166.255(3Xe). The trial court concluded that it did, and, accordingly, imposed the firearms prohibition based on defendant's harassment conviction. The Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that harassment was not a "qualifying misdemeanor" under ORS 166.255 because "offensive physical contact" did not necessarily constitute "physical force" for the purposes of ORS 166.255(3)(e). State v. Eggers, 326 Or.App. 337, 344, 532 P.3d 518 (2023).

State v. Eggers, 372 Or. 789, SC S070458 (Or. Oct 24, 2024)

Outcome: The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: