State v. Sorrow

• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
• Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
• Date Filed: 06-03-2021
• Case #: A172166
• Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, P.J. for the court; James, J. & Kamins, J.
• Full Text Opinion

Under 164.055, theft “requires a thief to intend permanent or virtually permanent loss to the owner of the possession and use of property.” State v. Christine, 193 Or App 800, 809, 93 P3d 82, rev den, 337 Or 476 (2004).

Defendant was convicted guilty except for insanity on two charges, second-degree robbery and first-degree theft, and appealed the judgement. Defendant assigned error to the legal standard the trial court applied for theft. Defendant argued that the state must prove that he “intended to effect a permanent deprivation of the credit union’s money.” Under ORS 164.055, theft “requires a thief to intend permanent or virtually permanent loss to the owner of the possession and use of property.”  State v. Christine, 193 Or App 800, 809, 93 P3d 82, rev den, 337 Or 476 (2004). The court held that because theft requires a defendant “to cause a permanent or nearly permanent loss,” the lower court erred. Reversed and Remanded.

Share Subscribe