State v. Thompson

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed Jeremiah Christian Thompson’s convictions for first-degree kidnapping and first-degree sexual abuse. The court held that kidnapping by asportation under ORS 163.225(1)(a) does not require proof of physical force or threatened force when the taking of a person under 16 occurs without the consent of the lawful custodian. The court also held that sufficient evidence supported findings that Thompson intended to substantially interfere with the child’s personal liberty and rejected his additional pro se claims.

Holdings

1. No. Kidnapping by asportation may be accomplished without physical force or a threat of physical force; under ORS 163.215(1), the taking may be accomplished by force, threat, deception, or, for a person under 16, without the consent of the person's lawful custodian.
2. Yes. A rational factfinder could infer from Thompson's conduct and statements that he intended to interfere substantially with R's personal liberty.
3. No. The Court of Appeals rejected the challenges to R's credibility, the sufficiency of evidence of sexual purpose, the sentence, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove that Thompson took R from one place to another under ORS 163.225(1)(a) without using or threatening physical force.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to find that Thompson intended to interfere substantially with R's personal liberty.
3. Whether the pro se supplemental claims concerning witness credibility, sexual purpose, sentencing, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct demonstrated reversible error.

Disposition

affirmed