State v. Azar

When determining the legislature’s intent when enacting a statute, courts examine the text, context, and legislative history of the statute. State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171–72, 206 P3d 1042 (2009). A statute that provides a “reasonable degree of certainty” as to the prohibited conduct is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Graves, 299 Or 189, 195, 700 P2d 244 (1985).

Defendant appealed multiple convictions related to the sale of property he thought was stolen over eBay. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA) and acceptance of nonunanimous guilty verdicts.  On appeal, Defendant asserted that ORS 164.377(2) did not apply to his actions because it was enacted to combat computer hacking.  Defendant further contended that application of the statute to his actions would “result in constitutional vagueness problems.”  In response, the State, after conceding the nonunanimous jury issue, argued that ORS 164.377(2) applied to Defendant because it was intended to criminalize the use of a computer system for unlawful purposes.  When determining the legislature’s intent when enacting a statute, courts examine the text, context, and legislative history of the statute.  State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171–72, 206 P3d 1042 (2009).  A statute that provides a “reasonable degree of certainty” as to the prohibited conduct is not unconstitutionally vague.  State v. Graves, 299 Or 189, 195, 700 P2d 244 (1985).  The Court found nothing suggesting that ORS 164.377(2) was limited to computer hacking; the text and context of the statute did not support the argument “theft” was limited to “extraction of information from a computer.”  Further, the Court found its interpretation of ORS 164.377(2) provided a “reasonable degree of certainty” of the prohibited activity.  Thus, the Court held the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s MJOA.  Reversed and remanded on Counts 230, 35, 36, and 37; otherwise affirmed.