State v. Smith

Defendant, who was convicted of first-degree theft, ORS 164.055, argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss on the ground that the prosecutor’s decision whether to aggregate theft offenses into a single charge alleging theft of more than $1,000 violated Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution. 1 As explained below, we conclude that the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss, and therefore affirm.

The pertinent facts are not in dispute. The state alleged that, within a two-week period, defendant “did unlawfully and intentionally commit theft of…