State v. Horton

Under ORS 165.800(1), intent to defraud requires that a defendant act with specific intent which looks at a “conscious objective of causing the injury to another’s legal rights or interest."

Defendant appealed a conviction for identity theft. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to show that he acted with “intent to defraud.” He further argued that the intent to defraud meant to interfere with another person’s legal right or interest and that the evidence presented only showed that he received a social benefit. In response, the State argued that the intent to defraud was met because it included intent to cause reputational harm and that was met when Defendant used the teacher’s identity to reach out to her former students with sexual and flirtatious messages. Under ORS 165.800(1), intent to defraud requires that a defendant act with specific intent which looks at a “conscious objective of causing the injury to another’s legal rights or interest.” The court held that specific intent could not be inferred because the evidence used in trial showed that Defendant contacted students for personal reasons with an awareness that he would injure A’s reputation and that mere knowledge and reckless mental state are not enough. Reversed.