State v. Haltom

*67*534Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for second-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.425, asserting that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it could convict him of that crime if it found that he acted recklessly or negligently with respect to the victim's lack of consent.1 Defendant argues that, for purposes of second-degree sexual abuse, the victim's lack of consent is "a conduct element," and, therefore, in order to convict, the jury was required to find that he knew that the victim did not consent.2 See State v. Simonov , 358 Or. 531, 539-40, 368 P.3d 11 (2016) ("Unless…