Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Jayson Andrew TINDALL–MARTIN, Defendant–Appellant.
Defendant was convicted of a multitude of sex crimes against five different victims. In this consolidated appeal, he first assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion for a mistrial during voir dire. We reject that assignment without further discussion. In his second and third assignments of error, he maintains that the trial court erroneously denied his motions for a judgment of acquittal on one count of first-degree sexual abuse and one count of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration. The issue that defendant raises in his second and third assignments is whether a victim who is asleep when the sexual abuse occurs is incapable of consent by reason of being “physically helpless.” See ORS 163.427(l)(a)(C) (sexual contact when the victim is incapable of consent “by reason of being * * * physically helpless” is first-degree sexual abuse); ORS 163.411(1)(c) (penetration of “the vagina * * * with any object other than the penis or mouth of the actor” is first-degree unlawful sexual penetration if the victim is “incapable of consent by reason of * * * physical helplessness”).
Defendant argues, as he did in the trial court, that merely being asleep does not render the victim physically helpless. After the completion of briefing and oral argument in this case, we decided State v. Marker, 263 Or.App. 669, 674, 329 P3d 781 (2014), which rejects the same argument that defendant now makes. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 10122061 and 11071269; A151559 (Control) and A151560.
Decided: September 04, 2014
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)