From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Lamb

Oregon Court of Appeals
Dec 4, 1991
110 Or. App. 146 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)

Summary

holding that prohibition against defendant possessing any firearm did not constitute punishment under Ex Post Facto Clauses of Oregon or federal constitutions

Summary of this case from State v. Schluter

Opinion

90-112404; CA A68953

Argued and submitted November 7, affirmed December 4, 1991

Appeal from Circuit Court, Linn County.

Jackson Frost, Judge.

Larry Wright, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Jas. Adams, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Affirmed.


Defendant appeals a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. ORS 166.270. He assigns as error the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. We affirm.

In 1980, defendant was convicted of second degree burglary, first degree theft and manufacture of a controlled substance. At that time, ORS 166.270 prohibited felons from owning, possessing or having custody or control of "any pistol, revolver, or other firearms capable of being concealed on the person, or machine gun * * *." In 1989, the legislature amended ORS 166.270 to prohibit felons from owning, possessing or having custody or control of any firearm. Or Laws 1989, ch 839, § 4. In September or October, 1990, defendant bought a rifle. He was also in possession of some other rifles. Thereafter, he was convicted under the amended version of ORS 166.270.

The amendments took effect on January 1, 1990. Or Laws 1989, ch 839, § 41.

Defendant argues that the application of amended ORS 166.270 to him violates the prohibitions against ex post facto legislation, US Const, Art I, § 8; Or Const, Art I, § 21, because it imposes greater punishment for his 1980 crimes than that authorized at the time. The prohibition against defendant's possessing any firearms does not constitute ''punishment" under the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Oregon or federal constitutions. See State v. Burke, 109 Or. App. 7, 818 P.2d 511 (1991).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Lamb

Oregon Court of Appeals
Dec 4, 1991
110 Or. App. 146 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)

holding that prohibition against defendant possessing any firearm did not constitute punishment under Ex Post Facto Clauses of Oregon or federal constitutions

Summary of this case from State v. Schluter

In State v. Lamb, 110 Or. App. 146, 822 P.2d 143 (1991), we held that the 1989 legislative amendments to the firearms statute, ORS 166.270, do not constitute "punishment" under either constitution.

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

State v. Lamb

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JERRY EVERETTE LAMB, JR. Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 4, 1991

Citations

110 Or. App. 146 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)
822 P.2d 143

Citing Cases

State v. Zelinka

Accordingly, defendant's crime was not completed until after the enactment of the statute.See State v. Lamb,…

State v. Schluter

Id. Courts in Iowa and Oregon have reached similar conclusions. See State v. Swartz, 601 N.W.2d 348, 351…