Summary
In State v. Lowery, 71 Or. App. 833, 693 P.2d 1343 (1985), we held that a statute that defendant concedes is "nearly identical" was valid against a similar attack.
Summary of this case from State v. HibbardOpinion
B65-863; CA A32678
Argued and submitted December 18, 1984
Reversed and remanded January 23, 1985
Appeal from District Court, Lane County.
Laurie K. Smith, Judge.
Margaret E. Rabin, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, and Ella D. Johnson, Certified Law Student, Salem.
Daniel J. Ahern, Certified Law Student, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Ross M. Shepard, Public Defender, and Rush M. Hoag, II, Staff Attorney, Eugene.
Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate complaint.
The state appeals a trial court judgment dismissing a complaint charging defendant with harassment under ORS 166.065(1)(f), on the ground the statute was unconstitutionally vague. Contrary to the view of the trial court, we find the statute clear and unambiguous. Neither do we find merit in any other theory of unconstitutionality advanced by defendant.
ORS 166.065(1)(f) provides:
"(1) A person commits the crime of harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, the actor:
"* * * * *
"(f) Causes the telephone of another to ring with no communicative purpose."
Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the complaint.