Summary
concluding that evidence was insufficient to support the defendant's conviction for first-degree criminal mischief for stripping bark from 28 chittamwood trees, where state failed to present evidence allowing for the meaningful valuation of the damages caused by that conduct
Summary of this case from State v. WatermanOpinion
No. J80-1549, CA 19532
On respondent's petiton for reconsideration filed August 19, petition for reconsideration granted; former opinion filed July 27 ( 53 Or. App. 258, 631 P.2d 827) adhered to as modified September 28, 1981
Appeal from Circuit Court, Douglas County.
Robert M. Stults, Judge.
Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, William F. Gary, Solicitor General, and Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, for petition.
Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Roberts and Young, Judges.
ROBERTS, J.
Petition for reconsideration granted; former opinion adhered to as modified.
In this case we reduced defendant's conviction for stripping bark from chittamwood trees from criminal mischief in the first degree, ORS 164.365, to criminal mischief in the third degree, ORS 164.345, based on our finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish a monetary amount of damage. 53 Or. App. 258, 631 P.2d 827 (1981). In its petition for review, the state correctly points out that intentional damage to the property of another in any amount is criminal mischief in the second degree. ORS 164.354. Defendant admitted he stripped the bark from the trees intentionally. Our former opinion is therefore modified to reverse and remand for entry of a new judgment and resentencing for the crime of criminal mischief in the second degree.
Petition for reconsideration granted; former opinion adhered to as modified.