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. John Francis STABENOW, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction after a bench trial for unlawful use of a weapon (UUW), ORS 166.220, and menacing, ORS 163.190. The charges arose out of an incident in which defendant used a DeWalt pocket knife to threaten the alleged victim, T, who had confronted defendant based on his belief that defendant had stolen cigarettes from a 7-Eleven market. Defendant assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal for UUW, contending, as he did below, that the state failed to prove that he used a “deadly weapon,” as charged in the indictment.1 The state concedes that the evidence in the record is insufficient to support a conviction for UUW as alleged in this case. We agree.
A person commits UUW if the person “[a]ttempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon as defined in ORS 161.015.” ORS 166.220(1)(a). In this case, the indictment charged defendant with UUW based on his alleged attempt to use unlawfully against T “a knife, a deadly weapon.” ORS 161.015(2) defines “deadly weapon” as “any instrument, article or substance specifically designed for and presently capable of causing death or serious physical injury.”2 (Emphasis added.) Although the state presented evidence that a knife “could” cause death or serious physical injury, the record is devoid of evidence that the knife defendant allegedly attempted to use against T was “specifically designed” for that purpose. Therefore, the evidence was insufficient to establish that the knife was a deadly weapon, and the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the UUW charge.
Judgment of conviction for unlawful use of a weapon reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. In pro se supplemental and reply briefs, defendant raises additional arguments with respect to his conviction for menacing. We reject those arguments without discussion.
2. By contrast, a “dangerous weapon” is defined to mean “any weapon, device, instrument, material or substance which under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.” ORS 161.015(1).
PER CURIAM
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: A167135
Decided: September 05, 2019
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)