From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Luers

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jun 13, 2007
213 Or. App. 389 (Or. Ct. App. 2007)

Summary

determining that recklessly placing a person in danger of injury or property in danger of damage are merely alternative "circumstances" or "theories" and are not separate legislative concerns about arson under ORS 164.325(b)

Summary of this case from State v. Haddon

Opinion

Nos. 200106676; A115208.

Filed April 11, 2007.

June 13, 2007.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County.

Lyle C. Velure, Judge.

Shawn Wiley. Senior Deputy Public Defender, for petition.

Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Schuman and Ortega, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.


Defendant petitions for reconsideration of our decision in State v. Luers, 211 Or App 34, 153 P3d 688 (2007), asserting an error relating to our recitation of the facts. We grant reconsideration, modify our previous opinion, and adhere to it as modified.

In our opinion, when discussing the police search of the storage unit leased by defendant and another person, we stated, "In a loft area believed to be defendant's sleeping quarters, police discovered a bolt cutter that matched the cuts in the fence at Tyree Oil." Id. at 39. Defendant asserts that the loft area was separate from the sleeping quarters and that the bolt cutter was found in a backpack that was located near some of defendant's other property in that loft area. We modify our former opinion to eliminate any suggestion that the connection between the bolt cutter and defendant was established by virtue of the fact that it was found in sleeping quarters identified to be his.

We modify the challenged sentence to state, "Finally, police discovered a bolt cutter that matched the cuts in the fence at Tyree Oil."

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.


Summaries of

State v. Luers

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jun 13, 2007
213 Or. App. 389 (Or. Ct. App. 2007)

determining that recklessly placing a person in danger of injury or property in danger of damage are merely alternative "circumstances" or "theories" and are not separate legislative concerns about arson under ORS 164.325(b)

Summary of this case from State v. Haddon

noting that “ordinarily a victim is a person”

Summary of this case from State v. Nix

defining the term “component” as “a constituent part”

Summary of this case from State v. Johnson

dismissing constitutional challenges as moot on the basis that new statutory procedures will apply on resentencing

Summary of this case from State v. Ford
Case details for

State v. Luers

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JEFFREY MICHAEL LUERS, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Jun 13, 2007

Citations

213 Or. App. 389 (Or. Ct. App. 2007)
160 P.3d 1013

Citing Cases

State v. Soto

Accordingly, the moving party "must identify a 'case-specific' circumstance that impairs [their] right to a…

U.S. v. Waters

On a smaller scale, ELF members have repeatedly attacked "McMansions" and SUV dealerships. See, e.g., Steve…