State v. Ziska

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 10-24-2012
  • Case #: A145162
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J. for the Court; Haselton, C.J.; and Duncan, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 166.220(1)(a), the "use" of a weapon can be described as either actual use or the immediate threat to use the weapon.

Defendant appealed a conviction for unlawfully using a weapon. Defendant had been drinking with friends when an argument arose. He eventually stood and challenged his friend to a fight. After going to his room momentarily, Defendant returned carrying a crowbar which he raised and waved above his head while making a verbal threat. Defendant contended that “use” of a weapon has a narrower meaning, as intended by legislature, than was applied and that he simply threatened to use the crowbar as opposed to actually using it. Essentially, he argued that intent to use and attempted use should be construed differently than actual use. The Court of Appeal held that the meaning of the term “use” in ORS 166.220(1)(a) has been described as actual use of physical force as well as threat of immediate use of physical force. Affirmed.

Advanced Search