Offenses Against Property
Unauthorized use of a vehicle
Notes of Decisions
There was no crime under this section, when there was no evidence of defendant’s exercise of control over an operable vehicle. State v. Macomber, 269 Or 58, 523 P2d 560 (1974)
The court error in failing to remove the issue of unlawful taking from the jury was not prejudicial, even though the unlawful taking was listed as an alternative means of committing theft, for the evidence indicated that the property entered the defendant’s possession with the owner’s consent. State v. Mortenson, 27 Or App 265, 555 P2d 940 (1976), Sup Ct review denied
This section was not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Boyd, 28 Or App 725, 560 P2d 689 (1977)
Defendant’s unauthorized use of fork lift truck constituted unauthorized use of “vehicle” within meaning of this section, notwithstanding that vehicle was not licensed for operation on public roads. State v. Essig, 31 Or App 639, 571 P2d 170 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Burglary of or trespass to a vehicle, as was proscribed by former sections, does not constitute “use” of vehicle under this section. State v. Douthitt, 33 Or App 333, 576 P2d 1262 (1978)
A combine and a swather are vehicles within meaning of this section. State v. Keys, 41 Or App 379, 597 P2d 1266 (1979)
An inoperable motorcycle is a “vehicle” within meaning of this section. State v. Blair, 54 Or App 228, 634 P2d 491 (1981)
Indictment which alleged intentional use of vehicle as consisting of “gross deviation from agreed purpose” of performing repairs on automobile was sufficient. State v. Trow, 56 Or App 478, 642 P2d 1178 (1982), Sup Ct review denied
Where juvenile is charged with and admits to act that if committed by adult would be crime resulting in possible confinement for five years and court’s advice is insufficient regarding nature of charge and consequences of admission, child cannot be deemed to have made knowing waiver and juvenile court erred in not setting admission aside. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Clements, 95 Or App 640, 770 P2d 937 (1989)
Evidence that defendant had alleged association with gang members and that gang members used stolen cars in illegal activities was irrelevant to prove defendant’s knowledge that car was stolen. State v. Stone, 104 Or App 534, 802 P2d 668 (1990)
Where return of vehicle to owner is withheld, venue is proper either in county where vehicle is unlawfully possessed or county where return was contemplated. State v. Paget, 134 Or App 476, 896 P2d 1 (1995), Sup Ct review denied
Person commits crime of unauthorized use of vehicle when person operates or exercises control over vehicle without consent of person whose right to possession of vehicle is superior to that of person operating or exercising control over vehicle. State v. Haney, 256 Or App 506, 301 P3d 445 (2013)
Defense of “honest claim of right” in prosecution for theft available under ORS 164.035 is not defense to prosecution for unauthorized use of vehicle under this section, because prosecution for unauthorized use of vehicle does not require proof of “theft.” State v. Pusztai, 269 Or App 893, 348 P3d 241 (2015)
Because “without the consent of the owner” is part of nature and character of act of unauthorized use of vehicle under this section, minimum culpable mental state is knowledge of that fact; thus, where jury was given instruction that criminal negligence was applicable mental state required to convict defendant, reversal of conviction was required. State v. Simonov, 358 Or 531, 368 P3d 11 (2016)
Where defendant, convicted under subsection (1)(a) of this section, had consent to use employer’s vehicle but kept vehicle for longer time than agreed, and state provided evidence only as to subsection (1)(c) of this section but not to support conviction under subsection (1)(a), defendant is entitled to acquittal because where only deviation proved is temporal, subsection (1)(c) controls exclusively. State v. Civil, 283 Or App 395, 388 P3d 1185 (2017)
Term “vehicle” includes inoperable vehicles that are capable of operation with reasonable repairs but does not include vehicles that are beyond reasonable repair and constitute wrecked vehicles. State v. Eastep, 361 Or 746, 399 P3d 979 (2017)
“Vehicle,” as used in this section, includes nonmechanized trailer used for carrying or transporting personal property. State v. Phillips, 315 Or App 178, 501 P3d 537 (2021), Sup Ct review denied
COMPLETED CITATIONS: State Forester v. Umpqua R. Nav. Co., 258 Or 10, 478 P2d 631 (1970), cert. denied, 404 US 826 (1971)