Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Oregon » Court of Appeals » 2003 » A112567 State v. Mayorga
A112567 State v. Mayorga
State: Oregon
Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk
Docket No: A112567
Case Date: 02/05/2003
Plaintiff: A112567 State
Defendant: Mayorga
Specialty: v. NORMA LILIA GARCIA MAYORGA, Appellant.
Preview:FILED: February 5, 2003
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Respondent,
v.
NORMA LILIA GARCIA MAYORGA,
Appellant.

CF97-0307; A112567 Appeal from Circuit Court, Umatilla County. Garry L. Reynolds, Judge. Argued and submitted November 26, 2002. Rebecca Duncan, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was David E. Groom,
Acting Executive Director, Office of Public Defense Services.
Julie A. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers,
Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Brewer, Judges.
LANDAU, P. J.
Affirmed.
LANDAU, P. J.
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for two counts of first-degree possession of a forged instrument. ORS

165.022. She argues that the forged documents that she possessed are not the sort of documents that support a conviction for first-degree forgery. She also argues that, even if they do, the two convictions should be merged. We affirm, writing to address only the sufficiency of the evidence as to the convictions.
The relevant facts are not in dispute. Defendant was found in possession of a forged resident alien card and a forged social security card. She was charged with two counts of first-degree possession of a forged instrument under ORS 165.022, which provides that a person commits that crime "if, knowing it to be forged and with intent to utter same, the person possesses a forged instrument of the kind specified in ORS 165.013." The forged instruments specified in ORS 165.013(1) are:
"(a) Part of an issue of money, securities, postage or revenue stamps, or other valuable instruments issued by a government or governmental agency; or
"(b) Part of an issue of stock, bonds or other instruments representing interests in or claims against any property or person; or
"(c) A deed, will, codicil, contract or assignment; or
"(d) A check for $750 or more, a credit card purchase slip for $750 or more, or a combination of checks and credit card purchase slips that, in the aggregate, total $750 or more, or any other commercial
instrument or other document that does or may evidence, create, transfer, alter, terminate or otherwise
affect a legal right, interest, obligation or status; or
"(e) A public record."
At trial, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the two forged documents that she possessed are not included in the list of forged instruments specified in ORS 165.013(1). The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the resident alien and social security cards are "other document[s] that do[] or may evidence, create, transfer, alter, terminate or otherwise affect a legal right, interest, obligation or status" within the meaning of ORS 165.013(1)(d).
On appeal, defendant again asserts that the forged resident alien and social security cards are not included in the list of forged instruments specified in ORS 165.013(1). According to defendant, the trial court erred in concluding that the documents are "other documents" that evidence a legal right, interest, obligation, or status under ORS 165.013(1)(d). She reasons that, under the interpretive principle of ejusdem generis , the "other documents" to which the statute refers are implicitly limited to "other commercial documents" because the preceding provisions of the subsection in which the phrase appears all pertain to documents evidencing commercial transactions.
The state argues that defendant misreads the statute, which already specifically refers to "other commercial instrument[s]" and lists, in addition to that category, "other document[s]" that evidence a "legal right, interest, obligation or status." Thus, the state argues, the final "other documents" clause is not limited to those pertaining to purely commercial transactions. We agree with the state.
In disposing of the parties' arguments, we attempt to determine, as a matter of law, the intended meaning of the relevant provisions of the statute. PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12, 859 P2d 1143 (1993). We begin with the text of the statute in its context, applying rules of textual construction that we presume the legislature employed in enacting the provision at issue. Id.
As we have noted, ORS 165.013(1)(d) provides that among the forged instruments that may be the basis for a first
Download A112567.pdf

Oregon Law

Oregon State Laws
Oregon Tax
Oregon Court
    > Muller v. Oregon
Oregon Labor Laws
Oregon Agencies
    > DMV Oregon

Comments

Tips