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. Gonzalez-Aguillar

Court of Appeals of Oregon

August 23, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JESUS GONZALEZ-AGUILLAR, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and Submitted June 29, 2017

         Washington County Circuit Court C150045CR; Suzanne Upton, Judge.

          Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Offce of Public Defense Services.

          Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

          Before Garrett, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Edmonds, Senior Judge.

         Case Summary: Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for two counts of first-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument, ORS 165.022. On appeal, defendant assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal on both counts, arguing that the two documents-a forged Social Security card and a forged permanent-resident card-did not qualify as "other valuable instruments" within the meaning of ORS 165.013(1)(a)(A).

         Held: The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal. Under State v. Tarrence, 161 Or.App. 583, 588, 985 P.2d 225 (1999), the two documents do not qualify as "other valuable instruments" because (1) they lack a readily ascertainable face value, and (2) they were not issued by a government as part of a large or discrete series.

         Reversed and remanded.

         [287 Or. 411] GARRETT, P. J.

         Defendant was convicted after a bench trial of two counts of first-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument, ORS 165.022. On appeal, defendant assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on both counts. The issue before us is whether the forged documents that defendant possessed-a permanent-resident card and a Social Security card, both purporting to be issued by the federal government-are "valuable instruments" within the meaning of ORS 165.013(1)(a)(A). We conclude that they are not, and that the trial court consequently erred in denying the MJOA. The judgment is reversed.

         The relevant facts are undisputed. A police officer stopped defendant for two traffic violations. The officer impounded the vehicle after he determined that neither defendant nor his passenger was authorized to drive. During an inventory search, the officer found two identification cards in the glove compartment. One appeared to be a Social Security card; the other appeared to be a permanent-resident card. Suspecting that the cards were inauthentic, the officer questioned defendant, who said that he bought the cards at a market in California and had been using them to obtain employment.

         Defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument, ORS 165.022. Critically for this appeal, the state proceeded against defendant under the theory that he possessed written instruments that purported to be "[p]art of an issue of money, securities, postage or revenue stamps, or other valuable instruments issued by a government or governmental agency." ORS 165.013(1)(a)(A).

         At the close of the state's case, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on both counts on the ground that neither of the documents that he possessed was a "valuable instrument" within the meaning of ORS 165.013(1)(a)(A). Defendant argued that a "valuable instrument" under sub-paragraph (A) must have inherent pecuniary value, a characteristic lacking in the two forged identification cards. The [287 Or. 412] trial court denied the MJOA. On appeal, defendant reprises his argument.

         When a trial court's denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal turns on a question of statutory construction, we review for legal error. State v. Rodriguez, 283 Or.App. 536, 540-41, 390 P.3d 1104, rev den, 361 Or. 543 (2017). We construe statutes by considering the text of the statute in context, the statute's legislative history to the extent that it is useful, and maxims of statutory construction when necessary to resolve any remaining uncertainty. State v. Gaines,346 Or. 160, 171-72, 206 P.3d 1042 (2009). If we have previously construed a statute, and that construction controls the interpretive question on appeal, we adhere to our prior construction of the ...


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.