# State v. Dameron

> Oregon Supreme Court · May 28, 1993 · 316 Or. 448

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9580208

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner on Review, v. WILLIAM C. DAMERON, Respondent on Review
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 28, 1993
- **Citations:** 316 Or. 448; 853 P.2d 1285; 1993 Ore. LEXIS 67
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Gillette
- **Judges:** Hoomissen, Carson, Peterson, Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Fadeley, Unis, Tongue
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 331 Or. 38 (2000).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9580208

## Opinion text

GILLETTE, J.,
dissenting.
Starting with a bad idea and then trying to expand upon it produces results like that reached in this case. This is a case of a trespasser who indisputably was on private property and was ordered to leave that property by a person who was in charge of the property. The majority nonetheless reverses the trespasser’s conviction for criminal trespass on the ground that the state failed to disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the “defense” that the trespasser was engaged in constitutionally protected activity, viz., petition signature gathering. 1 The principal fault with the majority’s approach lies in its unspoken major premise, which is that the activity in question could be (the majority declines to determine that, in this case, it is) constitutionally protected. As I believe that I have demonstrated in Lloyd Corporation v. Whiffen, 315 Or 500, 528-56 , 849 P2d 446 (1993) (Whiffen II) (Gillette, J., dissenting), there is no such constitutional right to gather petition signatures on private property. It follows that the defendant had no “defense” that the state had to disprove, and that his conviction for criminal trespass therefore should be affirmed.
Carson, C. J., and Peterson, J., join in this dissenting opinion.
There is no single majority opinion, but the disposition to which I refer is agreed upon by four members of the court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9580208. Public record. Not legal advice.