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. Olson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

March 20, 2019

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CLIFTON JOHN OLSON, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted September 18, 2018.

          Clackamas County Circuit Court CR1501925; Katherine E. Weber, Judge.

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

          Jamie Contreras, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Sharia Mayfeld, Assistant Attorney General.

          Before Hadlock, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.

         Reversed and remanded as to Counts 3, 4, and 7; otherwise affrmed.

         Case Summary: Defendant was convicted of three counts of felony fourth-degree assault, in connection with three separate domestic violence incidents. Pursuant to ORS 163.160(3)(d), he was convicted of felonies, rather than misdemeanors, on the basis that he knew that the victim was pregnant at the time of each assault. At trial, defendant had moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the evidence was insuffcient to prove that the victim was pregnant when the assaults occurred. The trial court denied that motion. On appeal, defendant assigns error to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal.

         Held: On this record, the evidence was insuffcient to allow a factfnder to fnd that the victim was pregnant when each of the assaults occurred. Although it is possible that she was pregnant at the time of each assault, a factfnder could not make a reasonable inference on this record and would have to resort to impermissible speculation. Defendant's felony conviction on Counts 3, 4, and 7 are reversed and remanded for entry of misdemeanor convictions on those counts.

         Reversed and remanded as to Counts 3, 4 and 7; otherwise affrmed. [296 Or. 688]

          AOYAGI, J.

         Defendant was convicted of multiple crimes, including three counts of felony fourth-degree assault (Counts 3, 4, and 7), after a series of incidents involving his girlfriend, J. The three assault convictions were elevated to felonies on the basis that defendant knew that J was pregnant at the time of the assaults. On appeal, defendant challenges the assault convictions, raising two assignments of error. We reject defendant's second assignment of error without written discussion. In his first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, because the evidence was speculative as to whether J was actually pregnant at the time of each assault. For the reasons that follow, we agree. We therefore reverse defendant's felony convictions on Counts 3, 4, and 7; remand for entry of misdemeanor convictions on those counts; and otherwise affirm.

         In reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Long, 286 Or.App. 334, 335, 399 P.3d 1063 (2017). Applying that standard, the relevant facts are as follows.

         Defendant and J began dating in the summer. J moved in with defendant in mid-to-late July, and they discussed wanting J to become pregnant. J became pregnant in the first half of August, as confirmed by a home pregnancy test and an ultrasound on August 18. Defendant knew about the pregnancy at that time.

         On August 28, defendant woke J by deploying a taser to her leg, which caused her pain and a welt on her leg. J described ...


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.