## Facts

- Kandi Lucile Crow had previously been convicted (within the prior five years) of multiple counts of second-degree animal neglect involving dogs and miniature horses.
- Under ORS 167.332(1)(a) (2013), a person convicted of certain animal crimes could not possess a domestic animal, or an animal of the same genus against which the prior crime was committed, for five years after conviction.
- During the five-year prohibition period, investigators found Crow in possession of numerous animals, including 11 miniature horses, multiple cats, and a dog.
- The State charged Crow with 13 counts of unlawful possession of an animal by a person previously convicted of second-degree animal neglect, in violation of ORS 167.332(1)(a).
- Crow was found guilty on all 13 counts, and the trial court entered 13 separate convictions rather than merging the guilty verdicts into one (or fewer) convictions.
- On appeal, Crow raised multiple assignments of error. The Court of Appeals rejected the first without written discussion. The remaining assignments were argued together and challenged the trial court’s refusal to merge the convictions.

## Issues

1. For merger under ORS 161.067(2), are the animals unlawfully possessed in violation of ORS 167.332(1)(a) separate “victims,” allowing separate convictions for each animal?
2. Or is “the public” the only victim of the unlawful-possession offense, requiring the guilty verdicts to merge into a single conviction?

## Decision

- The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The court held that ORS 167.332(1)(a) was enacted to protect individual animals from suffering by preventing people convicted of crimes against animals from possessing animals.
- Because each unlawfully possessed animal is a separate victim for purposes of ORS 161.067(2), the trial court did not err by entering 13 separate convictions.

## Legal Principles

- Under ORS 161.067(2), whether multiple guilty verdicts merge into a single conviction can turn on whether the defendant’s conduct involved multiple victims; when there are multiple victims, separate convictions may be entered.
- To identify the “victim” for merger purposes, Oregon courts look to the interest the legislature sought to protect in defining the offense.
- ORS 167.332(1)(a) (2013) focuses on preventing future harm to animals by limiting animal possession by people previously convicted of animal neglect or related crimes; the statute is directed at the animals subject to the prohibition.
- Animals are living beings capable of suffering and may be treated as individual victims for merger analysis when the offense is aimed at preventing harm to them.
- The court rejected Crow’s analogy to felon-in-possession firearm cases (where the public is often treated as a single victim), reasoning that the structure and history of ORS 167.332(1)(a) show a focus on preventing harm to particular animals rather than addressing a generalized public-safety risk.

## Conclusion

In *Oregon v. Crow*, the Court of Appeals held that unlawful possession of multiple animals during a statutory prohibition period creates multiple victims because ORS 167.332(1)(a) is directed at preventing suffering by individual animals; therefore, Crow’s 13 guilty verdicts did not merge, and the trial court properly entered 13 separate convictions.


Oregon v. Crow, 294 Or. App. 88 (2018)