State v. Clemente-Perez

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Supreme Court
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 09-17-2015
  • Case #: S062407
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Baldwin, J., for the Court
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 160.250(1)(b), a person is within a vehicle if the person, or any part of the person’s body, is inside the vehicle while he possesses a concealed, readily accessible handgun. Under ORS 160.250(2)(b), a person’s residence encompasses only the building in which he lives, and does not extend to structures in the house’s curtilage.

Defendant appealed his conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm, ORS 166.250, assigning error to the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for acquittal. On appeal, Defendant advanced two arguments: first, that Defendant was not “within” a vehicle for the purposes of ORS 166.250(1)(b), and second, even if Defendant was “within” the vehicle that he fell under the “place of residence” exception under ORS 166.250(2)(b). The Court held that a person violates ORS 166.250(1)(b) if the person, or some portion of the person’s body, is inside a vehicle at any time while the person possesses a concealed, readily accessible handgun. The Court found that the State presented sufficient evidence at trial for a reasonable trier of fact to have found Defendant was “within” a vehicle while in possession of a concealed, readily accessible handgun under ORS 166.250(1)(b). As to Clemente-Perez’s second argument, the Court held the definition of “place of residence” exception of ORS 160.250(2)(b) encompasses only a person’s or residential structure where he or she lives, and does not extend to structures in the house’s curtilage. The Court found that Defendant was not within his residence when he possess the handgun, and thus did not fall under the “place of residence exception. Affirmed.

Advanced Search