State of Oregon v. Stephen Wayne Ziska; State of Oregon v. Margarito Garza

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court consolidated State v. Ziska and State v. Garza to interpret the term "use" in Oregon's unlawful-use-of-a-weapon statute, ORS 166.220(1)(a). The court held that "use" includes employing a dangerous or deadly weapon to threaten immediate harm, not only employing it to inflict physical injury. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals decisions and the circuit court judgments.

Holdings

1. As used in ORS 166.220(1)(a), "use" includes both employment of a dangerous or deadly weapon to inflict harm or injury and employment of such a weapon to threaten immediate harm or injury.
2. The evidence established that both defendants violated ORS 166.220(1)(a) because each displayed a dangerous or deadly weapon against another person in a manner threatening imminent serious physical injury, and the conduct was unlawful because it amounted to menacing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the term "use" in ORS 166.220(1)(a) includes employing a dangerous or deadly weapon to threaten immediate harm or injury, as well as employing it to inflict physical harm or injury.
2. Whether the evidence established that Ziska and Garza violated ORS 166.220(1)(a) by displaying weapons in a manner that threatened imminent serious physical injury.

Disposition

affirmed