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. Folkerts

Court of Appeals of Oregon

March 14, 2018

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOSEPH D. FOLKERTS, aka Joseph Duane Folkerts, Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted October 06, 2017

         Multnomah County Circuit Court 15CR47739; Thomas M. Ryan, Judge.

          Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Ingrid A. MacFarlane, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Adam Holbrook, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

          Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and Powers, Judge.

          [290 Or. 785] PER CURIAM.

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, ORS 166.250(1)(a), [1] in particular, knowingly carrying a firearm concealed upon his person. Defendant assigns as error the trial court's rejection of his request to instruct the jury on the exception to that offense when a person possesses a firearm at the person's "place of residence, " ORS 166.250(2)(b).[2] Police encountered defendant in a garage that was "detached" from the main residence but connected by a "breezeway" three to four feet wide underneath a roof. The garage had within it chairs and a table so that residents and guests could use it as a place to "hang out" and was considered an "extension" of the house's living areas. Defendant was living as a guest in the residence.

         Below, the state argued that the exception did not apply to the garage because it was not a "place of residence" and that, in any event, the "place of residence" exception does not apply to unlawful possession of a firearm by concealment upon a person. On appeal, however, the state concedes that, under State v. Perry, 165 Or.App. 342, 996 P.2d 995 (2000), affd, 336 Or. 49, 77 P.3d 313 (2003), the "place of residence" exception applies to unlawfully carrying a concealed firearm. That is, because we held in Perry that ORS 166.250(2)(b) "provides an exception the statutory prohibition in ORS 166.250(1)(a) against carrying a concealed firearm for persons who do so in the place of business, " 165 Or.App. at 348, the exception in ORS 166.250(2)(b) similarly [290 Or. 786] applies to ORS 166.250(1)(a) when the concealment of the firearm is in a "place of residence." Further, the state also concedes that, viewing the record in the light most favorable to defendant, there was sufficient evidence in the record for a jury to conclude that the garage was used as part of the residence. We agree that defendant's requested instruction correctly stated the law applicable to his defense theory, see State v. Barnes, 329 Or. 327, 334, 986 P.2d 1160 (1999), and accept the state's concession.

         Further, we conclude that the instructional error was not harmless. Failing to instruct the jury on the exception deprived defendant of that defense, and, had the jury been given the instruction, there is some likelihood that it would have reached a different verdict. See State v. Davis, 336 Or. 19, 35, 77 P.3d 1111 (2003) (stating harmless error standard).

         Reversed and remanded.

---------

Notes:

[1] ORS 166.250(1) provides, in relevant part:

"Except as otherwise provided in this section ***, a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if 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.