State v. Wilson

Under ORS 137.123(5)(b), a sentencing court has discretion to impose consecutive sentences for separate convictions arising out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct only if it finds that the criminal offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated "caused or created a risk of causing greater or qualitatively different loss, injury or harm to the victim or caused or created a risk of causing loss, injury or harm to a different victim than was caused or threatened by the other offense or offenses committed during a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct."

The defendant appealed his conviction for attempted murder and unlawful use of a weapon (UUW), arguing that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences because the conduct and the risk of harm by both offenses were the same. Under ORS 137.123(5)(b), a sentencing court has discretion to impose consecutive sentences for separate convictions arising out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct only if it finds that the criminal offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated "caused or created a risk of causing greater or qualitatively different loss, injury or harm to the victim or caused or created a risk of causing loss, injury or harm to a different victim than was caused or threatened by the other offense or offenses committed during a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct." The Court found that the offenses involved different victims. The Court reasoned that since the crimes posed a risk of harm to distinct individuals, a police officer, and any person within a group of people, they constituted separate victims under the law. The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to impose partially consecutive sentences.