State v. Hiner

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 03-04-2015
  • Case #: A151423
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J., for the Court; Nakamoto, J.; & Egan, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

When proving a sex offender failed to report, under former ORS 181.599(1)(d), the state must prove that a sex offender both left a previous residence and completed a move into a new residence while failing to comply with reporting requirements. The 2009 amendment to this statute (currently numbered ORS 181.812(1)(d)) requires the state to prove only that the sex offender moved from a previous residence and failed to comply with reporting requirements.

Defendant was convicted of failing to report as a sex offender under former ORS 181.599(1)(d) (now renumbered 181.812(1)(d)). In early January 2012 Defendant reported to law enforcement his residence at the Roseburg Rescue Mission homeless shelter, where the check-in supervisor kept a daily record of who spent the night that indicated Defendant ceased to reside at the shelter in late January 2012. Defendant did not report he had ceased to reside at the shelter, and sixteen days after he left the residence he was arrested pursuant to a warrant issued. Under former ORS 181.599(1)(d), Defendant was required to report to law enforcement within ten days after he "[m]oves to a new residence" and he was subsequently charged with violation of the statute. At a bench trial, Defendant made a motion for acquittal on the grounds that the state failed to prove he had acquired a new residence; the trial court denied his motion and convicted Defendant, holding the state was only required to prove he had left his former residence and Defendant had failed to report within ten days of doing so. On appeal, Defendant argued that the statute required the state to prove both the element of leaving his former residence and completed the move into a new residence. The Court held under former ORS 181.599(1)(d) the state had to prove both elements because (1) the statute required reporting within ten days after Defendant had moved to a new address and (2) the legislative history showed intent, following the Court’s Macnab decision, to adopt a 2009 amendment that changed the statute to require the state must prove only that a sex offender had left his previous residence without timely reporting. Reversed.

Advanced Search