State v. Menefee

264                November 26, 2025              No. 1024

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                 STATE OF OREGON

                 STATE OF OREGON,
                  Plaintiff-Respondent,
                            v.
       DAMASCUS LORD SEYMOR MENEFEE,
   aka Larry Lee Brooks, Jr., aka Dominique Deweese,
       aka Sovren Gray, aka Damascus Menefee,
             aka Damascus Lord Menefee,
         aka Damascus Lord Seymour Menefee,
          aka Damascus Lordseymor Menefee,
          aka Damascus Lord Seymor Menfee,
             aka Geofrey Brooke Robinson,
             aka Damascus Lord Seymour,
                 Defendant-Appellant.
           Multnomah County Circuit Court
                 23CR60939; A185205

  Eric L. Dahlin, Judge.
  Submitted October 10, 2025.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and James Brewer, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon
Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.
   Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Elise Josephson, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
  EGAN, J.
  Reversed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)                           265

           EGAN, J.
         Defendant was convicted of giving false information
to a peace officer, ORS 162.385(1)(a), after an incident at the
Portland airport in which defendant gave a false name to
an officer who found him sleeping there. ORS 162.385(1)(a)
makes it a crime to give false information to a peace officer
in connection with a citation when the “peace officer is issuing or serving the person a citation.” On appeal, defendant
argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for
a judgment of acquittal, because the state failed to present
sufficient evidence that the officer was issuing a citation as
opposed to investigating. The state concedes that the evidence is legally insufficient to prove that the officer was issuing a citation; rather, it shows that the officer was checking
whether defendant had been contacted before by police at
the airport and told defendant that “[m]y full intention is
to just give you a warning” in the event that he had not
already been excluded from the property. On this record, we
agree with and accept the state’s concession, and we reverse
defendant’s conviction.1
           Reversed.




   1
     As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel.