Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 10-23-2024
Case Style:
State of Oregon v. Bobby Joe Richard Fitch
Case Number: 21CR21762
Judge: Ladd J. Wiles
Court: Circuit Court, Yamhill County, Oregon
Plaintiff's Attorney: Yamhill County, Oregon District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
McMinnville, Oregon criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with unlawful use of a vehicle.
After defendant was involved in a single-car accident, an officer responded and determined that the car had been reported stolen several weeks earlier. In response to the officer's questions about the car's status, defendant stated that he had bought the car from "some Mexican dude" after approaching the man in an apartment's parking lot. On investigation, however, the car's owner claimed that he did not know defendant, that he had never been approached by anyone about selling the car, and that he had not consented to anyone using it. Defendant could not produce the car's title or the bill of sale, but he claimed to have paperwork in the car to replace a lost title. The car's owner later found mail and various registrations in the car with different names on them.
A person commits the crime of UUV when "[t]he person knowingly takes, operates, exercises control over or otherwise uses another's vehicle, *** is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the owner of the vehicle * * * does not consent to the taking, operation or other use of, or the exercise of control over, the vehicle," and the owner of the vehicle did not consent to such use. ORS 164.135(2)(a)(A) - (C). Because the statute did not assign a culpable mental state for UUV prior to a 2019 amendment, we previously determined that the state was required to prove the culpable mental state specified in the indictment. See, e.g., State v. Bell, 220 Or.App. 266, 269, 185 P.3d 541 (2008) (determining that the state was required to prove that the person actually knew the car was stolen [335 Or.App. 558] because the indictment alleged a knowing mental state). Moreover, the Oregon Supreme Court later construed the UUV statute under the default mental state provisions (ORS 161.085-161.115) to require a knowing mental state as to the use of the vehicle without the owner's consent, regardless of what is pled in the charging instrument. State v. Simonov, 358 Or. 531, 546, 368 P.3d 11 (2016).
State v. Fitch, 335 Or.App. 556, A177906 (Or. App. Oct 23, 2024)
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: