Court Opinion

ID: 9563574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:42:12.071248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:55.786869
License: Public Domain

HASELTON, J.,
concurring.
On occasion, this court, like all courts, says more than it must — and, sometimes, more than it should. State v. Lopez was such a case.
In Lopez, as the dissent emphasizes, we said:
“Words of common usage should be given their ‘plain, natural and ordinary meaning.’
“The common understanding of the phrase ‘answering the telephone’ is the physical process of taking the receiver off the hook, placing it to one’s ear and saying, ‘Hello.’ ” 151 Or App at 141.
That language cannot be reconciled with the result we reach in this case.
The majority ignores that inconvenient language. Instead, what is, in fact, contrary is deemed “consistent.” 156 Or App at 193. With respect, such “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” cleverness does not suit us. We should, instead, candidly acknowledge our mistakes — and then move on.
Lopez’s construction of “answer” in ORS 166.090-(l)(b) was unnecessarily overbroad, ill-advised, and erroneous. With that qualification, I concur in the balance of the majority opinion.