State v. King

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 05-04-2016
  • Case #: A153512
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Nakamoto, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 167.057, "explicit verbal description" means "explicit identification of sexual conduct when identification is intended to bring a graphic sexual image to the mind of the recipient."

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction, following a bench trial assigning error to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant argued that his text messaging of a minor lacked "explicit verbal description" of sexual conduct, as required by statute. Specifically, Defendant argued that his conduct did not amount to a "description". The Court construed "description" to mean an "explicit identification of sexual conduct when identification is intended to bring a graphic sexual image to the mind of the recipient" and not verbally detailing the sexual conduct. The Court ultimately concluded that a reasonable factfinder could have found that Defendant's message fell within the conduct that is prohibited by statute. Affirmed.

Advanced Search