State v. M.M.A.

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 10-25-2017
  • Case #: A158436
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Garrett, J. for the Court; DeVore, P.J. & James, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

In order to prove criminal liability under ORS 163.165(1)(e), the state must prove the defendant either directly inflicted physical injury, or “engaged in conduct so extensively intertwined with infliction of the injury that such conduct can be found to have produced the injury.” State v. Pine, 336 Or 194, 201, 82, P3d 130 (2003).

Appellant (the youth) appealed from a conviction of third-degree assault that stemmed from an altercation at her school. On appeal, the youth assigned error to the court’s conviction, arguing that the evidence in the record was insufficient to establish that she caused the injuries to the victim due to the multiple participants in the fight. The state in turn argued that sufficient evidence existed in the record to support the court’s conviction under ORS 163.165(1)(e). In order to prove criminal liability under ORS 163.165(1)(e), the state must prove that defendant either directly inflicted physical injury, or that defendant “engaged in conduct so extensively intertwined with infliction of the injury that such conduct can be found to have produced the injury.” State v. Pine, 336 Or 194, 201, 82, P3d 130 (2003). The Court of Appeals disagreed with the youth’s argument and opined that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, a rational trier of fact could find that the youth had committed third-degree assault on the victim. The Court of Appeals held that the evidence contained in the record, specifically a short video of the fight, supported the conclusion that the youth assaulted the victim and caused multiple injuries. Affirmed. 

 

 

Advanced Search