State v. Street

Conduct that puts multiple persons at risk can support separate convictions under ORS 161.067(2). Jones v. State of Oregon, 246 Or App 253, 260 n 3, 265 P3d 75 (2011).

Defendant appealed a conviction for two counts of first-degree online sexual corruption of a child.  Defendant communicated with a law enforcement officer posing as the mother of two underage children and arranged “to engage in sexual conduct with the three of them.”  On appeal, Defendant asserted that the trial court should have granted his motion for acquittal because he did not directly communicate online with a minor for sex.  Further, Defendant argued that the trial court erred because it failed to merge the two counts into a single conviction.  In response, the State argued that “soliciting a child” included solicitations made through an intermediary and conceded the error in failing to merge the charges.  Conduct that puts multiple persons at risk can support separate convictions under ORS 161.067(2).  Jones v. State of Oregon, 246 Or App 253, 260 n 3, 265 P3d 75 (2011).  The Court found that the legislature intended to “criminalize all solicitations of children, not just direct solicitation.”  Further, the Court found that, unlike in Jones, no actual children were put at risk, so ORS 161.067(2) did not authorize entry of separate convictions.  Therefore, the Court affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, but “reversed and remanded for entry of a judgement of conviction for a single count of first-degree online sexual corruption of a child.”