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.