State v. Ritchey
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: June 19, 2013 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CECIL ROY RITCHEY, Defendant-Appellant. Douglas County Circuit Court 10CR0453FE A146699 George William Ambrosini, Judge. Argued and submitted on April 25, 2013. Neil F. Byl, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Office of Public Defense Services. Jeremy C. Rice, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General. Before Schuman, Presiding Judge, and Duncan, Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 1 PER CURIAM 2 Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for three counts of 3 encouraging child sexual abuse in the first degree, ORS 163.684, and three counts of 4 encouraging child sexual abuse in the second degree, ORS 163.686. The first-degree 5 counts alleged that defendant had duplicated photographs of sexually explicit conduct 6 involving a child, and the second-degree counts alleged that defendant had possessed 7 those photographs. 8 On appeal, defendant argues, inter alia, that the trial court erred in denying 9 his motions for judgments of acquittal on all counts because, according to defendant, "the 10 state failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove that the images were of 'sexually explicit 11 conduct.'" We reject that argument based on our decision in State v. Evans, 178 Or App 12 439, 37 P3d 227 (2001), rev den, 334 Or 76 (2002), in which we considered and rejected, 13 over a dissent, a similar argument. 14 Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for 15 judgment of acquittal on the first-degree counts on the ground that the state had failed to 16 prove venue, specifically, that the state had failed to prove that he had duplicated the 17 photographs within Douglas County. The state's theory was that defendant had 18 duplicated the photographs by downloading them onto his computer. We reject 19 defendant's venue argument based on the evidence that defendant accessed the internet at 20 three places, all of which a trier of fact reasonably could find were within Douglas 21 County. See State v. Cervantes, 319 Or 121, 126-27, 873 P2d 316 (1994) (holding that 1 1 there was sufficient evidence in the record from which a jury reasonably could have 2 inferred that the charged crime was committed in the county in which the defendant was 3 tried). 4 Affirmed. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
