State v. Nascimento

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 02-04-2015
  • Case #: A147290
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J., for the Court; Nakamoto, J.; & Egan, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 164.377(4), “Without authorization” applies to a machine limited to one function, and authorization given to use such machine for that one function, which does not constitute general authorization to use the machine for other functions outside of what was indicated.

Defendant appealed the dismissal of her motion for judgment of acquittal on one count of computer crime. Defendant worked at a deli counter in a convenience store where she had limited access to the lottery terminal. Defendant was to issue and validate lottery tickets to paying customers using the terminal only when the counter person was busy or unavailable to do so. Defendant was accused of theft by accessing the terminal, producing lottery tickets for herself, and not paying for them. Winning ones were subsequently redeemed. Defendant argues that the term “without authorization” in ORS 164.377(4) does not apply to her since she did have authorization, albeit limited, to the lottery terminal. The Court held that a jury could reasonably conclude that Defendant’s authorization was limited to producing and validating lottery tickets to paying customers only when the counter worker was unable to and accessing the terminal to issue lottery tickets to herself was without authorization. Affirmed.

Advanced Search