- Court: Oregon Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
- Date Filed: 07-25-2019
- Case #: S065317
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, J. for the Court; Walters, C.J.; Nakamoto, J.; Flynn, J.; Nelson, J.; with Garrett, J. dissenting and Balmer, J. joining.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed from the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of a conviction for twenty-seven counts of identity theft and one count of aggravated identity theft. The aggravated identity theft charge was not based on a separate act but rather the twenty-seven individual identity thefts. Defendant assigned error to the lower courts’ judgment that each of the twenty-seven counts of identity theft should not be merged into the aggravated identity theft charge. On appeal, Defendant argued each individual offense constituted a “lesser-included offense” of the aggravated identity theft. In response, the State argued that, pursuant to ORS 161.067(2), merger was precluded because there were twenty-seven victims. “When the same conduct or criminal episode, though violating only one statutory provision involves two or more victims, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are victims.” ORS 161.067(2). The Court held that ORS 161.067(2) only applies when the accused’s conduct violates a single statutory provision. Thus, the Defendant’s conduct, which violated both the identity theft provision and the aggravated identity theft provision, was not subject to the merger preclusion. Reversed and remanded.