- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Juvenile Law
- Date Filed: 05-11-2016
- Case #: A155389
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Oretga, P.J. for the Court; Lagesen, J.; & Garrett, J.
In a juvenile delinquency appeal, Youth challenged the juvenile court’s disposition finding him in violation of his probation. Youth was adjudicated and placed on probation after shooting another teen with a BB gun and damaging the property of two businesses. As part of probation, Youth was subject to a strict curfew, which spanned from 4 PM to 5AM seven days a week. On the day in question, Youth was riding his scooter outside of his home at around 10:20 p.m. The trial court found him in violation of his probation. On appeal, Youth argued that the trial court erred either by not interpreting “curfew” within the context of the juvenile code, or by subjecting Youth to an unconstitutionally vague order. The State argued that the order at issue is not appealable because the disposition did not adversely affect him. Additionally, the State argued that Youth failed to preserve his claims of error because Youth did not alert the trial court to a contention involving the interpretation of “curfew” and because Youth did not claim that the probation order were unconstitutionally vague. The Court found that Youth was adversly effected, and therefore allowed to appeal, but also found the errors unpreserved. Affirmed.