State v. Gatt

Citations: 149 P.3d 1220; 210 Or. App. 117; 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 2014Docket: 02CR0778; A123702

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; December 27, 2006; Oregon; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of State of Oregon v. Reno Martin Gatt, the Oregon Court of Appeals addressed the interpretation of ORS 163.160(3)(c), which elevates fourth-degree assault to a Class C felony if the assault is witnessed by the defendant's minor child. The defendant, Gatt, assaulted his 14-year-old son, A, resulting in physical injuries. He was charged with felony fourth-degree assault, which is generally a Class A misdemeanor but can be escalated to a felony under specific conditions, including when witnessed by a minor child.

Gatt contended that a minor victim cannot also be classified as a "witness" under the statute, arguing that the statutory language and its interpretation in State v. Glaspey support his view that the victim and the witness must be distinct individuals. The trial court disagreed, leading to Gatt's conviction. Upon appeal, the court reversed the trial court's decision, agreeing with Gatt that the minor victim of the assault does not simultaneously qualify as a witness according to the statute. The case was remanded for entry of judgment as a misdemeanor and for resentencing, confirming that the interpretation of the statute restricts the definition of "witness" to individuals other than the victim in this context.

The state contends that the court's ruling in Glaspey—that a witness is not considered a "victim"—is irrelevant to whether an assault victim qualifies as a "witness" to the assault. This matter requires statutory interpretation, guided by the principles set forth in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, which involves analyzing the statute's text within its context and consulting legislative history if needed. Specifically, ORS 163.160 defines fourth-degree assault, including conditions under which it can be elevated to a Class C felony. A critical factor for this elevation is if the assault is witnessed by a minor child associated with either the perpetrator or the victim. The statute clarifies that a child "witnesses" an assault if they see or otherwise directly perceive it. While victims of assaults may typically be considered witnesses, the legislative language implies a distinction between the terms "victim" and "witness," suggesting that they refer to different individuals. This is reinforced by the statute's phrasing regarding the relationship between the child and the victim, indicating an assumption that the victim and the witnessing child are separate entities. Thus, the interpretation of whether a child who is also a victim can be regarded as a "witness" under the statute presents ambiguity, with the ordinary definition of "witness" potentially supporting both broader and narrower interpretations.

In the case of Glaspey, the Supreme Court clarified the definition of "victim" under ORS 163.160 in the context of fourth-degree assault. The defendant had assaulted his wife in front of their two children, leading to two counts of assault based on the assertion that both children were "victims" because they witnessed the crime. The court rejected this argument, stating that while the legislature could have intended a broad definition of "victim," the specific statutory language must be examined. The court emphasized that in ORS 163.160(3)(c), the term "victim" denotes a person directly harmed by the assault, distinct from child witnesses. The statute indicates that a child’s witnessing of the assault increases its severity but does not classify the child as a victim. The court's decision underscores that not all witnesses qualify as victims, although it does not preclude the possibility of a child who is both a victim of assault and a witness. The state's interpretation was deemed inconsistent with the statute's language, particularly in light of relevant precedent, including State v. Goddard, which involved different circumstances regarding witnessing sexual conduct.

A victim of a sexual offense can also be classified as a witness, as they have direct knowledge of the conduct through personal presence, as established in Goddard. The court's conclusion was based on the ordinary meaning of terms, contextual usage, and legislative history indicating that participation is not necessary to qualify as a witness. Unlike the statute in Goddard, ORS 163.575(1) does not imply that a victim cannot also be a witness. The legislative history emphasizes concerns regarding the impact of witnessing domestic violence on children, reinforcing the court's interpretation. Consequently, the trial court's denial of the defendant's acquittal motion for felony assault was deemed erroneous, leading to a reversal and remand for a conviction of misdemeanor assault and resentencing. Additionally, the interpretation of a witness residing with the victim raises concerns of redundancy if all child victims are considered witnesses, suggesting a need for clearer statutory language.