Title: State v. Berg
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S056267
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: July 30, 2009

FILED: July 30, 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
STATE OF OREGON,
Respondent
on Review,
v.
JON NORMAN BERG,
Petitioner
on Review.
(CC 05C42989; CA A129341; SC S056267)
En Banc
On review from the
Court of Appeals.*
Argued and submitted
January 14, 2009.
Bronson D. James,
Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review.  The
brief was filed by Eric Johansen, Senior Deputy Public Defender, and Peter
Gartlan, Chief Defender, Office of Public Defense Services.
Pamela J. Walsh,
Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for
respondent on review.  With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney
General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
GILLETTE, J.
The decision of the
Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.
*Appeal from Marion
County Circuit Court, Joseph Guimond, Judge. 220 Or App 442, 186
P3d 325 (2008). 
GILLETTE, J.
This case is a companion to State
v. Bailey, 346 Or ___ , ___ P3d ___ (2009), decided this date.  As does the
defendant in Bailey, defendant in this case challenges his conviction for
"tampering with a witness," ORS 162.285(1)(a), on the theory that
that statute applies only when an official proceeding is pending at the time of
the tampering conduct -- a circumstance that the state did not and could not
prove in this case.  Today, in Bailey, we reject that interpretation of
ORS 162.285(1)(a).  In that case, we hold that the state can prove a violation
of the statute by showing that the defendant believed that the person in
question might be called as a witness in a potential future official proceeding
and knowingly attempted to induce him or her either to unlawfully testify
falsely or withhold testimony.  Bailey, 346 Or at ___ (slip op at 15). 
Accordingly, all that remains in this case is to determine whether the evidence
presented at trial was sufficient to establish those elements.  We conclude
that it was and, therefore, affirm.
Defendant was charged with tampering
with a witness and stalking, ORS 163.732, based on allegations that he had repeatedly
trespassed on his neighbors' property, engaged in aggressive and offensive
conduct toward them, and threatened one of them with various consequences if
she "showed up in court."  At trial, the state presented the
testimony of the neighbors (a woman and her mother), and two local police
officers.  Collectively, their testimony established that, on numerous
occasions between September 2004 and March 2005, defendant's neighbors had
called the police to report trespassing and other offensive conduct by
defendant.  At least initially, those calls to the police often did not result
in any action and, on September 26, 2004, the neighbors filed stalking and
criminal trespass complaints against defendant.  Defendant was arrested, but the
stalking complaint was dismissed a few days later for lack of evidence.  After that,
one of the neighbors began to keep track of the comings and goings at defendant's
home, writing down license plate numbers and taking photographs of his
visitors, in an effort to "build a case" against defendant.
The neighbor specifically testified
about threats that defendant and a friend had made to her on January 25, 2005. 
She testified that, on that day, a friend of defendant's, who was otherwise
unknown to her, approached her and told her that he was going to court with
defendant on the seventh of February and that he was going to tell the judge
that the neighbor had been on defendant's property the night before.  The man
told her that "he would make sure that I didn't show up to court, and if
he couldn't take care of me, then he would have his friend * * * come down and
take care of me."  Later that same day, the neighbor saw the same man with
defendant on defendant's front porch, and, immediately thereafter, as she was
walking to her mailbox, the man approached her and made the same threat that he
had made before -- that "he would take care of me so that I would not show
up to court."  The neighbor then testified that, as she headed back from her
mailbox, defendant approached her himself and told her that "either he or
his friend would make sure that I never made it to court to testify against
him," that he would break in to her house and rape her and beat her, and
that "he would have somebody take care of the brake lines on my car, cut
them; that one way or another I was not going to make it to court to
testify."  Although the reported threats all mentioned anticipated
testimony in court, there is no evidence in the record of any judicial
proceeding against defendant at the time of the threats.  However, the record does
contain some mention of defendant's arraignment on a criminal trespass charge on
February 10, 2005, a parole violation proceeding against him on April 26, 2005,
and the successful initiation of a second stalking complaint against defendant
on March 29, 2005. 
Indisputably, a reasonable factfinder
could infer from the foregoing evidence that defendant believed that the
neighbor might be called as a witness in a "court" -- in an "official
proceeding"(1)
-- and that his threats against the neighbor, whether he made them personally
or through an intermediary, were calculated to induce her to disregard or
otherwise refuse to comply with any such call -- that is, to unlawfully
withhold testimony.  Although there is no evidence in the record that any official
proceeding against defendant actually existed at the time of the threats, our
decision today in Bailey establishes that no such evidence is required. 
In short, the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for tampering
with a witness under ORS 162.285(1)(a).  The Court of Appeals was correct in so
holding. State v. Berg, 220 Or App 442, 186 P3d 325 (2008).
The decision of the Court of Appeals
and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.
1. ORS
162.225(2) defines the phrase "official proceeding" as follows:
"'Official proceeding' means a proceeding
before any judicial, legislative or administrative body or officer, wherein
sworn statements are received, and includes any referee, hearing examiner,
commissioner, notary or other person taking sworn statements in connection with
such proceedings."