State v. Eastep

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 04-20-2016
  • Case #: A155418
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Flynn, J. for the Court; Duncan, P.J.; & Lagesen, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

ORS 164.135, unauthorized use of a vehicle, does not require that the vehicle over which defendant exercised control was operable.

Defendant appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and the court’s rejection of his jury instructions. Contrary to Defendant's requested jury instructions, ORS 164.135, unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), does not require that the State prove that the vehicle over which a defendant exercised control was operable. Based on the evidence that Defendant towed a pickup truck and sold it without the owner’s consent, the jury could find that Defendant took control of the vehicle under ORS 164.135. The fact that the pickup was not operable does not matter because the Court applied the ordinary meaning of “vehicle” when construing the statute. In applying the ordinary meaning of "vehicle," there is no specification that the vehicle must be operable to be a "vehicle" under UUV. Therefore, the trial court did not err in declining defendant’s jury instructions. Affirmed.

Advanced Search