State v. Lasheki

Under ORS 161.067(3), “criminal charges based on multiple violations of the same statutory provision will not merge if a ‘sufficient pause’ separates these violations.” Additionally, “a ‘pause’ occurs between two statutory violations only if the defendant’s commission of one violation ends before the second violation begins.” State v. Ortiz-Rico, 303 Or App 78, 85, 462 P3d 741 (2020).

Defendant was convicted of three counts of sexual abuse. Defendant assigned error to the three counts of abuse not being merged by the trial court. Defendant argued that “all of his criminal conduct occurred during a single episode without a ‘sufficient pause.’” The state contended that it was not uninterrupted as there was one point one the defendant stopped his actions, left, and then returned to resume his criminal act; this constitutes different acts necessary for separate charges. Under ORS 161.067(3), “criminal charges based on multiple violations of the same statutory provision will not merge if a ‘sufficient pause’ separates these violations.” Additionally, “a ‘pause’ occurs between two statutory violations only if the defendant’s commission of one violation ends before the second violation begins.” Ortiz-Rico, 303 Or App at 85. The court found that there no evidence supporting a sufficient separation between the criminal acts. "Convictions on Counts 1, 2, and 3 reversed and remanded for entry of judgment of conviction on one countof first-degree sexual abuse; remanded for resentencing; otherwise Affirmed."