State v. Morales

“ORS 161.095 provides … a person is not guilty of an offense unless the person acts with a culpable mental state with respect to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a culpable mental state” (internal quotations omitted).

Defendant was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief because he, among other things, kicked down the back door of a vacant dwelling. The trial court made no ruling as to whether the criminal mischief statute ORS 164.365(1)(a)(A) required any culpable mental state. On defendant’s first appeal, the Court held that there was no requirement for the State to prove any culpable mental state regarding the amount of the property damaged element of first-degree criminal mischief. The Supreme Court remanded the case after abrogating the cases the Court relied on in deciding Defendant’s first appeal, and that the statute did require the state to prove a culpable mental state as to that material element. “ORS 161.095 provides … a person is not guilty of an offense unless the person acts with a culpable mental state with respect to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a culpable mental state” (internal quotations omitted). Defendant contended that there was insufficient evidence to show he had a culpable mental state as to the amount of damages required for criminal mischief. Relying on State v. Shedrick, 370 Or 255 (2022), the Court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to find that the defendant acted with criminal negligence amounting to damages exceeding $1,000. The Court reasoned that the amount-of-damage element of criminal mischief was analogous to the property-value element of first-degree theft in Shedrick. Furthermore, nothing in ORS 164.365 excepts first-degree criminal mischief from ORS 161.095(2). Applying Shedrick, the Court assumed that the mens rea for the crime was criminal negligence. Therefore, the trial court did not err in declining to acquit based on insufficient evidence. Affirmed.