State of Oregon v. Karen V. Kayne

Portland, Oregon criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with two counts of maintaining a dangerous dog, ORS 609.098.

Reported by Kent Morlan

Under ORS 609.098(2), “[a] person commits the
crime of maintaining a dangerous dog if the person is the
keeper of a dog and the person, with criminal negligence,
fails to prevent the dog from engaging in an act described
in subsection (1) of this section.” As relevant here, ORS
609.098(1)(b) provides that a “dangerous dog” means a dog
that “[a]cts as a potentially dangerous dog,” defined under
ORS 609.035(8)(c) as a dog that “[w]ithout provocation and
while not on premises from which the keeper may lawfully
exclude others, inflicts physical injury on or kills livestock
or a domestic animal,” after having previously committed
an act as a potentially dangerous dog that resulted in the
keeper being found to have violated ORS 609.095(1)(g) (dog
1 In light of that conclusion, we do not address defendant’s remaining assign-ments
of error, in which she argues that the trial court erred in (1) applying
an incorrect legal standard in finding that defendant was guilty of maintaining
dangerous dogs because the incident “began” on public property and then contin-ued
on defendant’s property; and (2) imposing restitution without a hearing or
stipulation. We decline to address the first claim of error, which is unpreserved,
because we cannot say with confidence that it will arise on remand; and should
it arise on remand, the parties will have an opportunity to address it before the
trial court in the first instance. As to defendant’s challenge to the imposition of
restitution, we note that the state concedes that it was error; however, our dispo-sition
obviates the need to address it.
644 State v. Kayne

Guilty.

Reversed.