State v. Civil

HASELTON, S. J.

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction of one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), ORS 164.135, entered after a bench trial. He asserts that, although he was charged with UUV solely under ORS 164.135(l)(a), the evidence at trial related only to ORS 164.135(l)(c)—and, because of that asymmetry, he was entitled to acquittal.1 Central to defendant’s challenge is his assertion that State v. Cox, 96 Or App 473, 772 P2d 1385, rev den, 308 Or 315 (1989), in which we construed the scope of ORS 164.135(1)(a), “was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” For the reasons…