State v. Stull ( 2024 )

674 May 22, 2024 No. 337
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
BARRY JOE STULL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
19CR21313; A178951
Andrew M. Lavin, Judge.
Submitted April 29, 2024.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Brett J. Allin, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Kirsten M. Naito, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Mooney, Judge, and Pagán,
Judge.
MOONEY, J.
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 332 Or App 674 (2024) 675
MOONEY, J.
Defendant appeals a judgment revoking his proba-
tion. He assigns error to the trial court’s finding that he
violated probation by possessing a weapon, arguing that
the state produced insufficient evidence of the charged vio-
lation because the “softball sized rock” that he possessed
did not qualify as a “weapon.” But it is well-established
that common objects may be considered dangerous weapons
depending on how they are used, including the pavement, a
hardwood floor, a can opener, and any “small, hard object.”
Sutherland v. Fhuere, 332 Or App 589, 592-93, ___ P3d ___
(2024) (asphalt pavement); State v. Glazier, 253 Or App 109,
114, 288 P3d 1007 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 280 (2013) (hard-
wood floor); State v. Gale, 36 Or App 275, 278, 583 P2d 1169(1978) (can opener); State v. Allen, 108 Or App 402, 405-06,
816 P2d 639 (1991) (“small, hard object”). The evidence sup-
ports a determination that defendant possessed and threw
softball sized rocks at passing vehicles. We affirm.
Affirmed.