Opinion ID: 4237794
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “Initiates”

Text: Defendant emphasizes the word “initiates” in arguing that the text of ORS 162.375 excludes false accusations made in response to questioning. The legislature did not provide a definition for “initiates,” but it is a word of common usage, and we frequently consult dictionary definitions to determine the meaning of such terms “on the assumption that, if the legislature did not give the term a specialized definition, the dictionary definition reflects the meaning that the legislature would naturally have intended.” Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 356 Or 282, 296, 337 P3d 768 (2014). Defendant emphasizes that common meanings of the verb “initiate” include formulations such as “to begin or set going : make a beginning of”; “to bring about the initial formation of”; and “to mark the beginning of.” Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 1164 (unabridged ed 2002).2 We agree that those definitions generally capture the meaning that the legislature intended when it used the term “initiates” in ORS 162.375(1). See In re Blaylock, 328 Or 409, 416, 978 P2d 381 (1999) (quoting and relying upon the Webster’s definition in construing term “initiate” as used in Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule 2-104). While that ordinary meaning of the term “initiates” may make it clear that the statute applies in some situations, such as a person calling an emergency line to falsely report that a crime is occurring, it is less clear what the legislature intended when the person makes an identical report during contact that law enforcement or an emergency organization initiated. Defendant proposes that the meaning suggested by the definitions quoted above “confirms” that ORS 162.375(1) excludes “responsive reports to police questioning.” We do not share defendant’s conviction that the word “initiates” so readily resolves the meaning of ORS 162.375(1). Nothing about Duke’s questioning raised the possibility that the 2 Although Webster’s Third was originally published in 1961, in subsequent republishing, new definitional material appears in an addendum section. As a result, we have explained, “any version of Webster’s Third—regardless of its copyright date—provides a relevant source of ordinary meaning for statutes enacted any time after 1961, if not earlier.” State v. Eastep, 361 Or 746, 751 n 2, 399 P3d 979 (2017). 358 State v. Branch other driver had brandished a gun. Instead, defendant introduced that new circumstance, and his false allegation caused Lance to undertake an investigation into a new crime, separate from the crimes about which defendant was being questioned. In that sense, defendant’s false allegation “mark[ed] the beginning of” any information being provided to law enforcement about a gun crime and “set going” the law enforcement response to that crime. Thus, defining the term “initiates” does not resolve whether the legislature intended to preclude the statute from applying to a person who falsely informs law enforcement officers of a new, ongoing crime whenever the false allegation is made in response to a police inquiry.