Background
Guy Thomas Johnson was convicted of one count of unlawful possession of a firearm under ORS 166.250. The trial court credited evidence that, while parked and standing outside a vehicle, Johnson moved a firearm from plain view to beneath a seat.
Johnson appealed the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal. He argued that ORS 166.250(1)(b) applies to a concealed handgun readily accessible in a vehicle only when the person possessing it is an occupant inside the vehicle.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed. It concluded that Johnson’s interpretation of ORS 166.250(1)(b) was foreclosed by the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Clemente-Perez, 357 Or 745, 359 P3d 232 (2015).
Under Clemente-Perez, a person violates ORS 166.250(1)(b) when any portion of the person’s body is inside a vehicle while the person possesses a concealed, readily accessible handgun. Johnson acknowledged that Clemente-Perez controlled but preserved his argument that it was wrongly decided for a possible petition for Oregon Supreme Court review.
Key Takeaways
- Binding Oregon Supreme Court precedent defeated Johnson’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
- ORS 166.250(1)(b) does not require the person possessing the concealed handgun to be fully inside the vehicle.
- The court issued the decision as a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that the Oregon Court of Appeals remains bound by Clemente-Perez’s interpretation of unlawful firearm possession in a vehicle, including when only part of a person’s body is inside the vehicle. Because the opinion is nonprecedential, it may not be cited except as permitted by ORAP 10.30(1).