235 Or. App. 691 234 P.3d 150

Submitted December 22,2009,

affirmed June 16, 2010

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DONTAE EUGENE MATHIS, Defendant-Appellant.

Marion County Circuit Court

07C50407; A138463

234 P3d 150

Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Bronson James, Chief Deputy Defender, Appellate Division, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General, and Tiffany Keast, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Wollheim, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.*

PER CURIAM

*692PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of tampering with a witness, among other crimes. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal as to witness tampering because, at the time that he attempted to induce the witness to lie to the district attorney, there was no “official proceeding” pending. See ORS 162.285(1) (“A person commits the crime of tampering with a witness if: (a) The person knowingly induces or attempts to induce a witness or a person the person believes may be called as a witness in any official proceeding to offer false testimony or unlawfully withhold any testimony[.]”).

Defendant’s argument is foreclosed by State v. Bailey, 346 Or 551, 564, 213 P3d 1240 (2009), in which the court held that, “when ORS 162.285(l)(a) defines witness tampering in terms of tampering with a person who the defendant ‘believes may be called as a witness in any official proceeding,’ it includes tampering that occurs at a time when no official proceeding is pending.” (Emphasis added.) In this case, based on the evidence in the record,1 a factfinder could reasonably infer that defendant made threats to the witness that were intended to induce her to lie in defendant’s soon-to-be-commenced criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal on the witness tampering charge. Id.

Affirmed.

State v. Mathis
235 Or. App. 691 234 P.3d 150

Case Details

Name
State v. Mathis
Decision Date
Jun 16, 2010
Citations

235 Or. App. 691

234 P.3d 150

Jurisdiction
Oregon

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!