State v. Dameron
| Decision Date | 30 May 1990 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. William C. DAMERON, Appellant. D881992M; CA A60258. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Steven L. Price, Hillsboro, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Rives Kistler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., and Katherine H. Waldo, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem.
Before RICHARDSON, P.J., and NEWMAN and DEITS, JJ.
Defendant appeals his conviction for criminal trespass in the second degree. ORS 164.245. He was gathering signatures on an initiative petition at the main entrance to the Raleigh Hills Fred Meyer store. He was asked to leave by an employee of the store and, when he refused, he was arrested for trespassing. He raised the defense that he had a constitutional right to be on the premises for the purpose of collecting signatures and that, therefore, the order for him to leave was not lawful under Article I, section 8, and Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution.
This case is not distinguishable from State v. Cargill, 100 Or.App. 336, 786 P.2d 208 (1990). Defendant established that he was engaged in a constitutionally protected activity, and the court erred in ruling that the order for defendant to leave the premises was lawful.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dameron
...and, therefore, the trial court erred in ruling that the order for defendant to leave the premises was lawful. State v. Dameron, 101 Or.App. 237, 238, 789 P.2d 707 (1990). Because defendant was convicted at trial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Harri......
-
Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Whiffen
...gatherers from requesting signatures on the sidewalk adjacent to an outdoor parking lot serving several businesses, State v. Dameron, 101 Or.App. 237, 789 P.2d 707 (1990), rev. allowed 312 Or. 554, 822 P.2d 713 (1991); or on a sidewalk located between an outdoor parking lot serving a single......
-
State v. Purdue
...to use that particular property for more than commercial activity so as to make the property a public forum. See also State v. Dameron, 101 Or.App. 237, 789 P.2d 707 (1990), rev. allowed 312 Or. 554, 822 P.2d 713 (1991).3 In Huffman, we held that the defendants did not have a constitutional......
-
State v. Dameron
...713 822 P.2d 713 312 Or. 554 State v. Dameron (William C.) NOS. A60258, S37145 Supreme Court of Oregon Dec 31, 1991 , 101 Or.App. 237, 789 P.2d 707 ...