State v. Lane

“[T]he crime of harassment, which involves subjecting another person to offensive physical contact, ORS 166.065(1)(a)(A), is a qualifying misdemeanor under the firearm prohibition.” State v. Eggers, 372 Or 789, 791, 558 P3d 830 (2024).

Defendant appealed the imposition of a firearm prohibition following convictions for menacing and harassment charges (each constituting domestic violence).

Misdemeanors qualify for the firearm prohibition when they involve the “use or attempted use of physical force.” ORS 166.255(3)(e). Based on Eggers (decided after this case was submitted), harassment was a qualifying misdemeanor, supporting the firearm prohibition.

As to the menacing charge, the Court of Appeals declined to exercise discretion to correct any plain error which might have occurred. Considering the State v. Fults, 343 Or 515, 523, 173 P3d 822 (2007), discretionary factors: because Defendant encouraged the judge’s imposition of a firearm prohibition, was involved in the plea deal’s negotiation, and apparently made a strategic choice not to object, the Court of Appeals declined to exercise discretion.

Furthermore, because the harassment conviction was itself sufficient to impose the firearm prohibition, amending the judgment to omit the prohibition for menacing would not have a real, practical effect on Defendant.

“Affirmed.”