State v. Barrett

The Court may "decline to address constitutional questions where the record was 'too inconclusive to justify the adoption of the constitutional rule urged by defendant.'" City of Portland v. Juntunen, 6 Or App 632, 635, 488 P2d 806 (1971).

Defendant appealed a conviction for unlawful camping on public property, criminal trespass, and interference with a peace officer.  Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of her pretrial motion to dismiss the charge of unlawful camping.  On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court failed by not finding that Portland's camping ordinance violated the Eighth Amendment since her camping on public property was the involuntary result of her homelessness.  In response, the City asserted that the issue was not preserved within the trial and that the camping ordinance addressed the act of camping in public spaces rather than merely the status of being homeless and therefore did not violate the Eighth Amendment.  The Court may "decline to address constitutional questions where the record was 'too inconclusive to justify the adoption of the constitutional rule urged by defendant.'" City of Portland v. Juntunen, 6 Or App 632, 635, 488 P2d 806 (1971).  The Court found that the trial court did not err by denying the pretrial motions or motion for a judjment of acquittal because the record lacked the facts needed to properly present the question, found that Defendant's right-to-travel argument failed as a challenge, and that Portland's camping laws were not preempted by ORS 203.077 or ORS 203.079.  Affirmed.