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. Harrison

Court of Appeals of Oregon

June 6, 2018

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
KALISTA RENE HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted January 31, 2017

          Douglas County Circuit Court 14CR1504MI William A. Marshall, Judge.

          Sarah Laidlaw, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.

          Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the briefs were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

          Before DeHoog, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge. [*]

         [292 Or. 233] Case Summary:

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm. ORS 166.250(1)(b). She raises four assignments of error on appeal. In her first assignment, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal, asserting that there was legally insufficient evidence that the firearm at issue was "concealed" for purposes of ORS 166.250(1)(b). In defendant's remaining assignments of error, she argues that the trial court erred in refusing to give her requested jury instructions defining "concealed" and "knowingly" under ORS 166.250(1).

         Held:

         The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. The evidence supported a finding that the handgun was shielded from the vision or notice of someone approaching the driver from outside the vehicle and-in the context of the encounter at issue-was "concealed." In addition, the trial court did not err in refusing to give defendant's first two requested jury instructions because they were not correct in all respects. The trial court did not err in refusing to give defendant's remaining requested instruction because it was merely an enlargement on another correct and complete instruction already given.

         Affirmed.

         [292 Or. 234] HADLOCK, J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm. ORS l66.25O(1)(b). She raises four assignments of error on appeal. In her first assignment, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal, asserting that there was legally insufficient evidence both that the firearm at issue was "concealed" for purposes of ORS 166.250(1) and that defendant "knowingly" concealed the firearm. In her remaining assignments of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to give her requested jury instructions defining "concealed" and "knowingly." As explained below, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal and, accordingly, reject the first assignment of error. Furthermore, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it declined to give defendant's requested special jury instructions. Accordingly, we affirm.

         The facts of this case are undisputed. On April 15, 2014, defendant's ex-boyfriend, O, called 9-1-1 and reported that defendant had come to his home in violation of a restraining order. O described the vehicle defendant was driving, the time she had left his home, and the direction in which she was traveling. He also reported that defendant was carrying a gun and that she might be suicidal. According to O, defendant routinely carried her handgun in her vehicle.

         Officer Hopkins, who had been informed of the circumstances described above, saw defendant's vehicle and initiated a "high risk traffic stop." After pulling defendant's vehicle over, Hopkins got out of his police car with a rifle in hand and defendant, who had been driving, also got out of her vehicle.

         Officer Barrett arrived at the scene shortly after Hopkins initiated the stop. At that time, defendant was already outside of her vehicle and had left the driver's side door open. Shortly after arriving, Barrett noticed that there was a handgun in the pocket of the driver's side door of defendant's vehicle. The door pocket was located below the window and armrest in the door, lower than the level [292 Or. 235] of the driver's seat, and the handle and upper cylinder of the gun was protruding from it. The barrel of the gun was pointing down into the pocket. The gun, which was later determined to be fully loaded, was visible to Barrett because the door of the car was open. When asked by the prosecutor whether the gun would have been visible "when the door was closed when there was a driver in the driver's ...


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.