Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Hiner

Court of Appeals of Oregon

March 4, 2015

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RONALD TRUEL HINER, II, Defendant-Appellant

Submitted April 25, 2014

Douglas County Circuit Court 12CR0332FE, 12CR0563FE. Randolph Lee Garrison, Judge.

Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Stephanie J. Hortsch, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge, and Egan, Judge.

OPINION

Page 479

[269 Or.App. 448] ARMSTRONG, P. J.

In Case Number 12CR0332FE, defendant was convicted of failure to report as a sex offender, former ORS 181.599(1)(d) (2011), renumbered as ORS 181.812(1)(d) (2013), and assigns error on appeal to the trial court's denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the crime.[1] He contends that the trial court misconstrued former ORS 181.599(1)(d) and, as a result, erred in concluding that the state was not required to prove that he had acquired a new residence in order to convict him of the crime. We agree with defendant and, accordingly, reverse.

Defendant was convicted in 2004 of sexual offenses. Among other things, defendant's convictions required him to comply with the sex-offender reporting requirement in former ORS 181.599(1)(d). In early 2012, defendant reported to law enforcement that he resided at the Roseburg Rescue Mission, which operates a homeless shelter. To spend the night at the mission, guests must pay a fee or perform chores. The mission's check-in supervisor keeps a daily record of who spends the night at the mission. The mission's records reflected that defendant slept at the mission until late January 2012. Sixteen days after defendant's last recorded stay at the mission, police responded to a report of an argument, encountered defendant, and, because there was a warrant for his arrest, took him into custody. At the time, former ORS 181.595 to 181.597 (2011), renumbered as ORS 181.806 to 181.808 (2013), required sex offenders to report to law enforcement within 10 days of changing their residence.[2]

The state subsequently charged defendant with failure to report as a sex offender under former ORS 181.599(1)(d), which provided:

" (1) A person who is required to report as a sex offender in accordance with the applicable provisions of ORS 181.595, 181.596, [269 Or.App. 449] or 181.597 or 181.609 and who has knowledge of the reporting requirement commits the crime of failure to report as a sex offender if the person:
" * * * * *

Page 480

" (d) Moves to a new residence and fails to report the move and the person's new ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.