Court Opinion

ID: 9789556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:38:21.692924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:23.152189
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, J.,
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority as to its interpretation of the statute and the weight that should be afforded the evidence in this case.
ORS 164.135 provides in pertinent part:
"(1) A person commits the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle when:
*339"(a) He takes, operates, exercises control over, rides in or otherwise uses another’s vehicle, boat or aircraft without consent of the owner * * * ” (Emphasis supplied.)
The statutory phrase "exercises control over” is a term of art which has been previously interpreted in the context of this statute to signify conduct consisting of something less than the actual operation of a moving vehicle. State v. Macomber, 269 Or 58, 60, 523 P2d 560 (1974). Were this not the case, the phrase "exercises control over” would be largely synonymous with "operates” and would serve no purpose in the statutory definition. In view of the fact that the unauthorized use statute appears in the theft offense chapter of the criminal code, the phrase "exercises control over” must be interpreted consistently with concepts of the elements of theft — i.e., the exercise of control over a vehicle without the owner’s consent consists of conduct which is intended to, or has the effect of, substantially interfering with the owner’s possession of the vehicle.
The legislative history of ORS 164.135 supports this interpretation. The official commentary to the Criminal Code states:
"This section covers the 'joy-riding’ type of offense where the actor makes unauthorized use of another’s vehicle but without the intent to steal it or permanently deprive the owner of its use. The purpose of the language, 'takes, operates, exercises control over, rides in or otherwise uses,’ is to prohibit not only the taking or driving of another’s vehicle without permission but, also, to prohibit any unauthorized use of the vehicle.” (Emphasis theirs.) Proposed Oregon Criminal Code 142, Commentary, § 134 (1970).
The emphasis upon the word "any” clearly indicates that the statute was intended to cover not only the actual operation of a vehicle without the owner’s consent, but also those acts leading up to or following the actual operation of the vehicle, including the entry of the vehicle.
This interpretation is further borne out by the minutes of Subcommittee No. 1 of the Criminal Law *340Revision Commission. On April 6, 1968, the Subcommittee discussed the proposed unauthorized use provision. The following colloquy took place:
"Chairman [John D.] Bums was of the opinion that the language of the present joy riding statute was not objectionable but expressed approval of subsection (1) (a) of the draft which broadened present law and eliminated other statutes having to do with tampering, entering, etc.
"Representative [Edward W.] Elder asked if entering an automobile was covered under the draft and Mr. [Donald] Paillette replied that 'exercises control over’ was, in his view, broad enough to apply to entering, and other members agreed.” Minutes, Subcommittee No. 1, Criminal Law Revision Commission, April 6, 1968, p. 12-13.
Perhaps the most convincing evidence of the legislative intent is the portion of the official Commentary to ORS 164.135 which provides:
"The section is meant to include the kinds of acts covered by ORS 164.670, the existing 'joy-riding’ statute, as well as conduct such as manipulating, starting or tampering with motor vehicles {ORS 164.650, 164.660). Damaging a vehicle would be covered by the sections on criminal mischief. Unauthorized use of a vehicle is classified as a Class C felony, but in appropriate cases the court would be authorized to treat the crime as a Class A misdemeanor. (See § 83 supra).” (Emphasis supplied.) Proposed Oregon Criminal Code 142, Commentary § 134 (1970).
Former ORS 164.650 provided:
"With the exception of an authorized officer, marshal, constable or policeman, any person who, without the consent of the owner or person lawfully in charge of a motor vehicle, as defined in ORS 483.014, climbs upon or into such motor vehicle, whether it is at rest or in motion; or, while it is at rest or unattended, attempts to manipulate any of the levers, the starting crank or other device, brakes or mechanism, or sets the vehicle in motion, shall be punished, upon conviction, as provided in subsection (1) of ORS 483.990 for violation of the statutes listed therein.” (Emphasis supplied.)
*341While the majority is correct in its observation that no specific reference to the entry of a vehicle is made in the new code provision, it is incorrect in its conclusion that the legislature thus must not have intended the statute to cover entering.
Although the majority opinion analyzes the words of the statute and the legislative history differently than I do, it nevertheless seems to reach the same rule of law. The opinion states:
"* * * thg new statute requires that the actor manifest an intent to deprive the rightful possessor of possession or to otherwise interfere with the rightful possessor’s use of the vehicle * *
The majority then concludes that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to consider whether defendant manifested such an intent. The majority’s reasoning is unclear. At some points in the opinion it characterizes the evidence as indicating a "mere entry” or a "naked trespass” of the vehicle. The characterization is inaccurate. The evidence adduced at trial was that defendant, apparently by means of forcing open a window, broke into a locked car, put on the owner’s coat which had been left in the car, rifled the glove box, and was apprehended getting out of the passenger seat. At the end of the opinion the majority discusses this evidence and concludes:
"Considered as separate acts or a single act, they do not constitute a sufficient exercise pf control over the vehicle such that defendant has manifested an intent to affect the rightful possessor’s relationship to the automobile * * '
The majority is apparently weighing the evidence. This is the province of the jury. The evidence was sufficient for a jury to reasonably conclude that defendant has substantially interfered with the owner’s possession of the vehicle...
I respectfully dissent.
Schwab, C. J., and Lee and Roberts, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.