What happens in Oregon when a word in a statute is undefined – and someone’s life and liberty is at stake?
In the case of 2011 ORS 167.007 and Oregon v. Palomo, the Oregon Court of Appeals weighs in and defines the word “fee,” with a little help from a dictionary and a legislative history.
Oregon v. Moresco, Court of Appeals, A144016, filed June 13 2012.
“Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for giving false information to a police officer, ORS 162.385(1)(b), arguing that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a judgment of acquittal because no rational trier of fact could have found that the officer to whom she lied about her identity had asked for her name for the purpose of arresting her on a warrant. We reverse. ….” [Read full case.]
The Oregon Court of Appeals, June 16, 2010, case Willis V. Winters (A139875) about controlled substances and guns:
“Wollheim, P. J.
Respondent, the Jackson County Sheriff, appeals a judgment of the circuit court that ordered him to renew a concealed handgun license issued to petitioner, a medical marijuana user. The sheriff concedes that petitioner met the requirements for issuance of a concealed handgun license set forth in ORS 166.291. He nevertheless asserts that Oregon’s concealed handgun licensing statutes are preempted by federal law in this instance, because “an unlawful user * * * of any controlled substance” cannot lawfully possess a firearm under 18 USC section 922(g) of the federal Gun Control Act.(1) The circuit court rejected the sheriff’s preemption argument and ordered him to issue a renewal of petitioner’s concealed handgun license. We agree with the circuit court’s conclusion that federal law does not preempt this state’s concealed handgun licensing statutes, and we therefore affirm…. “ Link to Media Releases or full-text)
Oregon Legal Research Blog