State v. Shedrick

Under ORS 161.095(2), to obtain a conviction, the state must prove that the defendant “acts with a culpable mental state with respect to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a culpable mental state.”

Defendant appealed his conviction of first-degree theft. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s failure to require proof of “criminal negligence” as to his awareness of the value of the money taken. Under ORS 161.095(2), to obtain a conviction, the state must prove that the defendant “acts with a culpable mental state with respect to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a culpable mental state.” The Court’s precedent established an exception can be recognized for the requirement of a culpable mental state as to some element of a criminal statute. The Court reasoned the party alleging an exception to ORS 161.095(2) must show “a legislative intent to disregard the statute.” The State argued that the legislature’s silence regarding proof of a culpable mental state concerning the property-value element of theft indicated a lack of legislative intent. The Court analyzed the legislative intent surrounding the first-degree theft statute, ORS 164.055, and it found a requirement that the state prove, as to the amount stolen, that the accused have at least a negligent mental state. The Court concluded that the trial court’s failure to require this mental state was an error; however, the error was harmless. Affirmed.