State v. Lane

Firearm Ban Upheld Based on Harassment Conviction

Defendant appealed his convictions for menacing and harassment constituting domestic violence, arguing the trial court erred by imposing a firearm prohibition under ORS 166.255. This statute prohibits possession of firearms or ammunition by persons convicted of “qualifying misdemeanors,” or those involving the use or attempted use of physical force.

Citing State v. Eggers, 372 Or 789 (2024), the court held that under ORS 166.065, harassment is a qualifying misdemeanor as it includes offensive physical contact. Thus, the firearm prohibition was proper as to that count. As to menacing, the court declined to reach whether it qualifies under ORS 166.255, instead holding that even assuming plain error, it would not exercise discretion to correct it under State v. Fults, 343 Or 515 (2007). The court noted that the sentence was jointly recommended, Defendant failed to object, and the record suggested a strategic choice not to do so. Because the firearm prohibition was proper based on the harassment conviction alone, correcting any error regarding the menacing conviction would have no practical effect. Accordingly, the court AFFIRMED.