State v. Jones

"If a term is used in one section of a statute, but not another, then it is assumed that the legislature intended the term to apply only to the section in which it is used." State v. Bailey, 346 Or 551, 562, 213 P3d 1240 (2009).

Defendant appealed a conviction of committing second-degree criminal mischief. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for acquittal due to lack of evidence that his actions caused economic loss to the affected property. On appeal, Defendant argued that, under ORS 164.354, the plain meaning of “damages” combined with two of the three ways to satisfy the statute involving monetary values, necessitated that the “damages” be economic in nature. In response, the State argued that “proof of economic harm” is not required by the statute. "If a term is used in one section of a statute, but not another, then it is assumed that the legislature intended the term to apply only to the section in which it is used. State v. Bailey, 346 Or 551, 562, 213 P3d 1240 (2009)." The Court held that, because monetary values were only applied to two of the three ways for satisfying ORS 164.354, the legislature did not intend to require economic harm as an element of criminal mischief. Thus, it was irrelevant to the trial court’s holding if Defendant’s actions caused economic harm to the property.

Affirmed.