Legal Opinion

State v. Baker-Krofft

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided August 19, 2010No. CC 06C53978; CA A135939; SC S057958; CC 06C44334; CA A134846; CC 06C45185; CA A134848; SC S058148PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKistler, J.

The question in these two cases is what constitutes “withholding] necessary and adequate * * * physical care” within the meaning of ORS 163.205 and ORS 163.200, two statutes that prohibit first- and second-degree criminal mistreatment. In both cases, defendants had children under their care who were well fed and healthy but who lived in homes with potential safety hazards. Following its precedent, the Court of Appeals held that creating or failing to correct potential safety hazards in the home constitutes “withholding] * * * physical care” within the meaning of ORS 163.200 and ORS 163.205.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Stevens v. CzerniakOregon Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Matter of Marriage of DentonOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  4. State v. CaseyOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  5. State v. BrineyOregon Supreme Court · 2008

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. State v. CarpenterOregon Supreme Court · 2019
  2. Murillo-Chavez v. BondiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2025
  3. State v. KaylorCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  4. State v. DrownCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  5. Norwood v. PremoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API