State v. Mullen, 245 OrApp 671 (2011)

Holding:   The victims of identity theft includes those who suffer a risk of loss from the exposure of their identification to misuse, even if no actual fraud occurs

1)   In construing a statute, “we examine the text of the statute in context, along with any relevant legislative history, to discern the legislature’s intent.” citing State v. Gaines. at p. 675.

2)   Phrase “another person” simply distinguishes “the perpetrator of the crime from the person whose identity is misappropriated. It does not * * * indicate that the person is merely a secondary or collateral subject of the statute. (cites omitted)” at p. 676.

3)   Where a criminal statute does not expressly identify who qualifies as a victim, “the court examines the statute to identify the gravamen of the crime and determine the class of persons whom the legislature intended to directly protect * * *. (cite omitted).” at p 677.

4)   Legislative history provides “some support” for the construction arrived at after a plain reading, and, therefore, is worthy of notice. at p. 678.

5)   The staff measure summaries can provide evidence of legislative intent. at p. 678.

Filed under: uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!