State v. Hilding

Defendant did not withhold attention from C because it was Defendant’s abusive attention that posed the safety risk. A person can not withhold necessary care from a dependent person by continuing to care for them.

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction of first-degree and third-degree assault, and multiple counts of first-degree criminal mischief. The charges result from injuries Defendant allegedly caused his infant son, C. Defendant raised four assignments of error. On appeal, Defendant argued that the first-degree criminal mistreatment statute was incorrectly applied because Defendant did not withhold care simply by allowing himself to be around C. In response, the State argued Defendant’s pattern of inattentiveness and neglect towards C warranted a conviction of criminal mistreatment. “A person commits the crime of criminal mistreatment in the first degree if: (a) the person, in violation of a legal duty to provide care for another person, or having assumed the permanent or temporary care, custody or responsibility for the supervision of another person, intentionally or knowingly withholds necessary and adequate food, physical care or medical attention from that other person[.]”ORS 163.205(1)(a). The Court reasoned that Defendant did not withhold attention from C because it was Defendant’s abusive attention that posed the safety risk. A person can not withhold necessary care from a dependent person by continuing to care for them. Thus, the lower court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, and convictions on those counts are reversed.