Court Opinion

ID: 9900326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 22:11:02.898841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:04.354074
License: Public Domain

762                  October 25, 2023              No. 561

         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                 STATE OF OREGON

                 In the Matter of A. O.,
                        a Youth.
                 STATE OF OREGON,
                      Respondent,
                           v.
                         A. O.,
                       Appellant.
              Malheur County Circuit Court
                  21JU05711; A178476

  Erin K. Landis, Judge.
  On respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed
September 19, 2023. Opinion filed September 13, 2023. 328
Or App 187.
    Christa Obold Eshleman and Youth, Rights & Justice
filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and
Pagan, Judge.
  PER CURIAM
   Reconsideration allowed; former nonprecedential decision
reissued as precedential opinion; reversed and remanded.
Cite as 328 Or App 762 (2023)                                                763

           PER CURIAM
          Youth appeals a judgment finding him within the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court because he committed acts
that, if he were an adult, would constitute minor in posses-
sion of alcohol, a Class B violation. ORS 471.430.1 The court
found youth within its jurisdiction after applying a “pre-
ponderance of the evidence” standard of proof. Although a
“violation proceeding” conducted pursuant to ORS 153.076
requires that the state need only prove “the charged viola-
tion by a preponderance of the evidence,” the parties agree
that that is not the case in a juvenile delinquency proceed-
ing. Moreover, the parties agree that the trial court plainly
erred in applying the incorrect standard. We agree and
accept the state’s concession.
         Under ORS 419C.400(2), “[t]he facts alleged in the
petition showing the youth to be within the jurisdiction of
the court as provided in ORS 419C.005, unless admitted,
must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.” There is no
provision in the juvenile code for applying a lesser standard
where the act committed by the youth otherwise would be
considered a violation rather than a crime. We exercise our
discretion to correct the error, given the gravity of the error.
        Reconsideration allowed; former nonprecedential
decision reissued as precedential opinion; reversed and
remanded.

     1
       This opinion originally issued as a nonprecedential memorandum disposi-
tion. State v. A. O., 328 Or App 107 (2023) (nonprecedential memorandum opin-
ion). Pursuant to ORAP 6.25(1)(f) and 10.30(1)(e), youth has requested that we
reconsider the opinion solely for the purpose of changing that designation and
reissuing it as a precedential opinion. We agree that this opinion should be desig-
nated as precedential. Other than this footnote and the disposition of the motion
being added to the tagline, this opinion is identical to the nonprecedential one
that previously issued.