Offenses Against Property
Criminal mischief in the third degree
Notes of Decisions
Evidence that defendant and others entered farm shed of another, and that keys were removed from trucks parked therein during occupation of shed, was sufficient to prove that defendant entered shed with intent to commit criminal mischief. State v. Essig, 31 Or App 639, 571 P2d 170 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Tampering with property requires conduct that alters, rearranges or changes property. State v. Schoen, 348 Or 207, 228 P3d 1207 (2010)
Where defendant chained SUV that belonged to another person but was parked in defendant’s parking space to defendant’s vehicle and towed SUV, causing damage to SUV’s bumper, and trial court’s jury instructions under this section defined “tamper” as “conduct that alters, rearranges or changes property,” jury instruction was in error because “tamper” requires alteration, rearrangement or change to property in manner that has adverse effect on property or its use. State v. Lee, 268 Or App 587, 342 P3d 1095 (2015)
COMPLETED CITATIONS: State Forester v. Umpqua R. Nav. Co., 258 Or 10, 478 P2d 631 (1970), cert. denied, 404 US 826 (1971)