State v. Eastep

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Supreme Court
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 08-10-2017
  • Case #: SC S064057
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Landau, J. for the Court; Balmer, C.J.; Kistler, J. Walters, J.; & Nakamoto, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 164.135, to qualify as a “vehicle” under the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle statute, the vehicle need not be in running order. However, it must be “capable of operation,” that is, not be completely disassembled or “wrecked.” State v. Macomber, 269 Or 58 (1974).

Defendant appealed the Court of Appeals decision which affirmed the trial court’s judgment of a conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), ORS 164.135.  Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for acquittal. On appeal, Defendant argued the vehicle being operable or operable with normal repairs is required to violate ORS 164.135. The State argued that there is no such requirement in ORS 164.135.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court judgment.  Under ORS 164.135, to qualify as a “vehicle” under the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle statute, the vehicle need not be in running order. However, it must be “capable of operation,” that is, not be completely disassembled or “wrecked.” State v. Macomber, 269 Or 58 (1974). In this case, the Supreme Court held that the State failed to establish that the truck that Defendant had arranged to sell was in such a condition that it would have been reasonable to restore it to an operable condition. Reversed and remanded for resentencing.  

Advanced Search