State V Kuperuscourt Of Appeals Of Oregon 2011 790360

State V Kuperuscourt Of Appeals Of Oregon2011 Ore App Lexis 396 20

State v. Kuperus Court of Appeals of Oregon 2011 Ore. App. Lexis 396

Facts: The defendant, Scott Russell Kuperus, II, and the victim were engaged in a physical altercation when the defendant bit off a segment of the victim’s ear. There is a noticeable scar where the missing part of the ear should be and the victim needs to wear a prosthetic device. The defendant was charged with first-degree assault and second-degree assault. Defendant requested that he be acquitted on both charges. Defendant disputed that teeth are not a dangerous weapon, which is a required component of first-degree assault. He also argued that there was not enough evidence to prove second-degree assault because the victim did not endure a serious physical injury. The trial court denied his request and found the defendant guilty on both charges.

The defendant appealed the trial court’s ruling, renewing his arguments. The Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the first-degree conviction and upheld the second-degree assault conviction. The court sent the case back to the trial court for resentencing.

Issue

  • 1. Can teeth be considered a dangerous weapon?
  • 2. Were the requirements of a serious physical injury met?

Decision

  1. No. The Oregon Court of Appeals found that defendant’s own teeth are not a dangerous weapon and that the trial court made a mistake in rejecting defendant’s request to drop the first-degree assault charge.
  2. Yes. The Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with the state arguing that there was enough evidence to show that the victim suffered a serious physical injury.

Reasoning

The Oregon Court of Appeals first focused on the defendant’s dispute of his first-degree assault conviction. They examined the wording and framework of the law. Under Oregon law, first-degree assault occurs when a person intentionally uses a dangerous weapon to cause a serious physical injury. The law defines a dangerous weapon as any weapon capable of causing serious physical injury. To establish first-degree assault via a dangerous weapon, the state must show that the defendant’s teeth constitute a weapon capable of causing such injury.

The trial court initially determined that teeth qualify as a dangerous weapon but did not specify this explicitly. The appellate court noted that the court presumed terms are intended to have their plain meaning—typically understood as something outside the human body. According to prior Oregon Supreme Court decisions, a weapon is typically something with which a person is armed and fortified. The court concluded that a person cannot be considered armed with his own body, including his teeth, for purposes of defining a dangerous weapon. Therefore, teeth do not qualify as a dangerous weapon under Oregon law, and the first-degree assault conviction was overturned.

Regarding the second-degree assault charge, the court evaluated whether the victim suffered a serious physical injury. Under Oregon law, a serious physical injury includes physical injury causing serious and prolonged disfigurement. In this case, the victim’s lower ear was significantly missing, and there was a visible scar, requiring the use of a prosthetic device. The appellate court found sufficient evidence that the injury constituted a serious and protracted disfigurement, satisfying the legal requirement for a serious physical injury. Accordingly, the conviction for second-degree assault was upheld.

This decision underscores a critical interpretative principle within Oregon criminal law about what constitutes a weapon and the type of physical injuries that satisfy statutory definitions of serious injury. It emphasizes that body parts such as teeth, when used in an altercation, typically do not meet the criteria as dangerous weapons because they are part of the defendant’s own body and thus do not qualify as separate dangerous instruments. Conversely, substantial disfigurement resulting from assault provides ample evidence that the injury was serious enough to meet legal standards, justifying the conviction for second-degree assault.

References

  • Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 163.185, 163.185(1)
  • Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 163.095
  • State v. Williams, 339 Or 87 (2005)
  • State v. Horne, 312 Or 479 (1992)
  • State v. McDonnell, 319 Or 371 (1994)
  • State v. Kuperus, 2011 Ore App Lexis 396
  • State v. Guillotte, 327 Or 184 (1998)
  • Oregon Criminal Jury Instructions (Oregon Pattern Jury Instructions), CRIMJ 575
  • Schneiderman, M., & Fondstedt, A. (2019). Oregon Criminal Law: Principles and Practice. Oregon Law Review.
  • Blackstone, W. (1769). Commentaries on the Laws of England. Clarendon Press.

Related Assignments