State v. Satterfield

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 11-12-2015
  • Case #: A156211
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Nakamoto, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Egan, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A defendant having “good reason to know” is insufficient to convict the defendant of theft by receiving, ORS 164.095(1), which, as interpreted by State v. Korelis, requires actual knowledge or belief that property was stolen.

Defendant appealed a conviction following a bench trial for theft in the first degree by receiving, arguing the trial court erred when it convicted him by finding he had good reason to know that a firearm he purchased was stolen. Defendant admitted at trial that although he knew something was not right with the firearm, he did not know or believe the firearm was stolen. The trial court expressly found Defendant did not know the firearm was stolen, but found him guilty. On appeal, Defendant argued that under ORS 164.095(1), theft by receiving is committed if a person receives, retains, conceals or disposes of property of another knowing or having good reason to know that the property was the subject of theft, and that the State had not met the burden established by statute and further interpreted by State v. Korelis. The Court held the trial court erred when it convicted Defendant of first-degree theft by receiving because “good reason to know” is a lesser culpable mental state than actual knowledge or believe, as required by statute and Korelis. Conviction on Count 1 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Advanced Search