Legal Opinion
State v. Dugger
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided April 10, 1985No. DA 275090; CA A33056PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, J.
Defendant publicly exposed his genitals while he was in the Frederick & Nelson department store, and he was charged with public indecency. ORS 163.465. He entered into a civil compromise with the store’s management pursuant to ORS 135.703 et seq., and the trial court dismissed the charge. The state appeals from the dismissal. We reverse.
ORS 135.703 provides:
“When a defendant is charged with a crime punishable as a misdemeanor for which the person injured by the act constituting the crime has a remedy by a civil action, the crime may be compromised, as provided in ORS 135.705, except when it…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Johnson v. Star MacHinery CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1974
- State v. DuffyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978
- State v. YosCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. SumerlinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
- State v. FergusonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
- State v. Binh Thi Thanh HaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
- State v. Van HoomissenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
- City of Portland v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.