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

  1. Johnson v. Star MacHinery CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  2. State v. DuffyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978
  3. State v. YosCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State v. SumerlinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  2. State v. FergusonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  3. State v. Binh Thi Thanh HaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
  4. State v. Van HoomissenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
  5. City of Portland v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

5 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