New Hunting Decision from Oregon Court of Appeals

Discussion in 'Northwest Hunting' started by CEF1959, Aug 12, 2010.

  1. CEF1959

    CEF1959
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    New Member

    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    14
    State v. Kimble/Berkner
    Decided: 8/11/2010
    Case No.: A139159
    Edmonds, S. J. for the Court; Haselton, P.J.; & Armstrong, J.
    http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A139159.htm

    CRIMINAL LAW – Clear-cut forest lines do not establish the requirement for distinctive or visible boundary lines required in order to uphold a conviction for hunting on the “enclosed” land of another.

    Defendants were charged with unlawfully and knowingly hunting on the enclosed land of another without obtaining permission from the owner. At trial, Defendants moved for judgment of acquittal arguing that the State failed to offer evidence that the clear-cut property was enclosed. The trial court held it was an issue for the jury to decide if a clear-cut area established visible boundaries. The Court of Appeals held that this is a matter of legislative intent, and should be determined by examination of the text of the statute and the definition of the term “enclosed.”
    Based on their review, the Court of Appeals held that to be “enclosed” the land must have a marked boundary separating it from the surrounding land.
    While clear-cut property has different characteristics, clear-cut lines are not sufficient to establish that the land is separate from the surrounding property. Reversed.
     
  2. Grizzly_A

    Grizzly_A
    Portland Metro Area
    Member

    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    22
    Thank you for posting that information.

    Can you boil all that down to lay speak?
     
  3. lucky guy

    lucky guy
    Sisters
    Active Member

    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    37
    It means that the edge of a clearcut is not a marked boundary that will support a charge of criminal trespass.
     
  4. Grizzly_A

    Grizzly_A
    Portland Metro Area
    Member

    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    22
    So you're saying that a fence, or posted signs must be present in addition to a clear cut line in order to prosecute for trespass?
     
  5. claypigeon

    claypigeon
    Salem
    Member

    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    3
    I believe signs would be sufficient.
     
  6. lucky guy

    lucky guy
    Sisters
    Active Member

    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    37
    It didn't say that, just said the edge of a clear cut isn't enough. I think the gray areas might be things like other changes in vegetation, drainage ditches, etc.
     
  7. darkminstrel

    darkminstrel
    Columbia County
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,451
    Likes Received:
    251
    Nice! As I was told that stalking in harsh weather is much less preferable to waiting in a clear-cut, this will be a boon.
     

Share This Page