essential element defense in Oregon

2003State v. Brown, 306 Or 599, 602 , 761 P2d 1300 (1988).” *73 As noted above, the state does not dispute that the children in this case were within three years of age of each other. 7 Specifically, as to the attempt charges against Jonathan Aragorn, omission of the aid and abet language would nevertheless leave an allegation that he “did unlawfully and knowingly attempt to subject [B], a person under the age of fourteen years, to sexual contact.” That allegation adequately states the crime of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree, identifying Jonathan Aragorn as the actor and B as the victi

2003State v. Brown, 306 Or 599, 602 , 761 P2d 1300 (1988).” *73 As noted above, the state does not dispute that the children in this case were within three years of age of each other. 7 Specifically, as to the attempt charges against Jonathan Aragorn, omission of the aid and abet language would nevertheless leave an allegation that he “did unlawfully and knowingly attempt to subject [B], a person under the age of fourteen years, to sexual contact.” That allegation adequately states the crime of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree, identifying Jonathan Aragorn as the actor and B as the victi

2002It is not an essential element of claim or defense in this case, anybody's propensity for anything is not an essential element in this case. "* * * [ State v. Whitney-Biggs, 147 Or.

2002It is not an essential element of claim or defense in this case, anybody’s propensity for anything is not an essential element in this case. “* * * [State v. Whitney-Biggs, 147 Or App 509 , 936 P2d 1047 (1997),] quite clearly [shows] that the defendant’s state of mind only allows prior evidence of prior bad acts if the defendant knows about those or is aware of them in some fashion.

1997To the degree that defendant’s belief that he *528 needed to defend himself depended on [the complainant’s] character, that character was placed ‘in issue.’ See State v. Montez, 309 Or 564, 611 , 789 P2d 1352 (1990).

1997To the degree that defendant’s belief that he *528 needed to defend himself depended on [the complainant’s] character, that character was placed ‘in issue.’ See State v. Montez, 309 Or 564, 611 , 789 P2d 1352 (1990).

1995We disagreed, and said: “[A] defendant may [not] obtain a summary judgment merely by showing the plaintiffs current lack of proof of an essential fact that it might ultimately have to prove at trial, if the defendant produces no evidence tending to prove the nonexistence of the fact.” 105 Or App at 31-32 .

1973In support of this contention defendants quote from Irwin v. First Nat’l Bank, 212 Or 534 , 321 P2d 299 (1958), and Schramm v. Burkhart, 137 Or 208 , 2 P2d 14 (1931), and conclude from those quoted statements that “[sjince Helen Ricks did not ‘accept any benefits under the will’ * * * ‘ or ‘take advantage of the provisions made by the other’ * * * an essential element of the doctrine contended for by plaintiffs is missing.” The authorities are far from precise as to the nature and extent of “benefits” they discuss.

1973In support of this contention defendants quote from Irwin v. First Nat’l Bank, 212 Or 534 , 321 P2d 299 (1958), and Schramm v. Burkhart, 137 Or 208 , 2 P2d 14 (1931), and conclude from those quoted statements that “[sjince Helen Ricks did not ‘accept any benefits under the will’ * * * ‘ or ‘take advantage of the provisions made by the other’ * * * an essential element of the doctrine contended for by plaintiffs is missing.” The authorities are far from precise as to the nature and extent of “benefits” they discuss.

1973In support of this contention defendants quote from Irwin v. First Nat’l Bank, 212 Or 534 , 321 P2d 299 (1958), and Schramm v. Burkhart, 137 Or 208 , 2 P2d 14 (1931), and conclude from those quoted statements that “[sjince Helen Ricks did not ‘accept any benefits under the will’ * * * ‘ or ‘take advantage of the provisions made by the other’ * * * an essential element of the doctrine contended for by plaintiffs is missing.” The authorities are far from precise as to the nature and extent of “benefits” they discuss.

1973In support of this contention defendants quote from Irwin v. First Nat’l Bank, 212 Or 534 , 321 P2d 299 (1958), and Schramm v. Burkhart, 137 Or 208 , 2 P2d 14 (1931), and conclude from those quoted statements that “[sjince Helen Ricks did not ‘accept any benefits under the will’ * * * ‘ or ‘take advantage of the provisions made by the other’ * * * an essential element of the doctrine contended for by plaintiffs is missing.” The authorities are far from precise as to the nature and extent of “benefits” they discuss.