second level analysis in Oregon

2016Defendant argues that the facts are undisputed that he gave the same description of events each time that he was interviewed. 3 After consideration of the disputed and undisputed facts in the light most favorable to the state, as well as inferences of innocence that flow from the undisputed evidence, the second level of analysis inquires “whether, [as a matter of law,] a rational factfinder, drawing reasonable inferences and making reasonable credibility choices, could find the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Guy, 229 Or App 611, 617-18 , 212 P3d 1265 , r

2016Defendant argues that the facts are undisputed that he gave the same description of events each time that he was interviewed. 3 After consideration of the disputed and undisputed facts in the light most favorable to the state, as well as inferences of innocence that flow from the undisputed evidence, the second level of analysis inquires “whether, [as a matter of law,] a rational factfinder, drawing reasonable inferences and making reasonable credibility choices, could find the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Guy, 229 Or App 611, 617-18 , 212 P3d 1265 , r

2016Defendant argues that the facts are undisputed that he gave the same description of events each time that he was interviewed. 3 After consideration of the disputed and undisputed facts in the light most favorable to the state, as well as inferences of innocence that flow from the undisputed evidence, the second level of analysis inquires “whether, [as a matter of law,] a rational factfinder, drawing reasonable inferences and making reasonable credibility choices, could find the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Guy, 229 Or App 611, 617-18 , 212 P3d 1265 , r

2011Moreover, while sewer is billed based on water use, sewer presumably could be obtained separately for those with a Well.” (Emphasis added.) The court explained: “Plaintiff argues * * * that ‘the legislature’s intent is clear from inquiry into the text and context of ORS 20.082, it is not necessary to move to the second level of analysis and consider legislative history to inform the court’s inquiry into legislative intent as discussed in [McGarry v. Hansen, 201 Or App 695 , 120 P3d 525 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 359 (2006)].’ To follow this route of thinking, however, is to ignore precedent or im

2011Moreover, while sewer is billed based on water use, sewer presumably could be obtained separately for those with a Well.” (Emphasis added.) The court explained: “Plaintiff argues * * * that ‘the legislature’s intent is clear from inquiry into the text and context of ORS 20.082, it is not necessary to move to the second level of analysis and consider legislative history to inform the court’s inquiry into legislative intent as discussed in [McGarry v. Hansen, 201 Or App 695 , 120 P3d 525 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 359 (2006)].’ To follow this route of thinking, however, is to ignore precedent or im

1999See Martin v. City of Albany, 320 Or 175, 182 , 880 P2d 926 (1994) (where most likely reading of text is not only plausible reading, court proceeds to second level of analysis); Weidner v. OSP, 319 Or 295, 301 , 877 P2d 62 (1994) (even where one reading of statute is more likely at first level of analysis, court will proceed to second level if another reading is possible).

1999See Martin v. City of Albany, 320 Or 175, 182 , 880 P2d 926 (1994) (where most likely reading of text is not only plausible reading, court proceeds to second level of analysis); Weidner v. OSP, 319 Or 295, 301 , 877 P2d 62 (1994) (even where one reading of statute is more likely at first level of analysis, court will proceed to second level if another reading is possible).

1997This court concluded in State v. Chakerian, 325 Or 370, 378-79 , 938 P2d 756 (1997), that the Criminal Law Revision Commission’s commentary on the Oregon Criminal Code of 1971 should be considered at the second level of analysis, as part of that Code’s legislative history, rather than at the first level of analysis.

1997This court concluded in State v. Chakerian, 325 Or 370, 378-79 , 938 P2d 756 (1997), that the Criminal Law Revision Commission’s commentary on the Oregon Criminal Code of 1971 should be considered at the second level of analysis, as part of that Code’s legislative history, rather than at the first level of analysis.

1997Id. at 543 .