The state must prove three elements to establish a violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.200(1) or Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.205(1): (1) the defendant acted with the requisite mental state; (2) the defendant had a duty to provide care for a person; and (3) the defendant withheld necessary and adequate food, physical care or medical attention from that person.
Defendants had children under their care who were well fed and healthy but who lived in homes with potential safety hazards. Defendants were convicted for withholding necessary and adequate physical care, in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 163.205, 163.200. The Court of Appeals, Oregon, affirmed, and defendants sought further review. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions.
Did defendant withhold necessary and adequate physical care to its dependents?
No evidence permitted a reasonable inference that defendants failed to provide for their children's bodily needs or protect them from an immediate harm. The court held that "physical care," within the meaning of Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 163.205, 163.200, was withheld from a dependent person when a defendant kept back from the dependent person those physical services and attention necessary to provide for the dependent person's bodily needs. Not every risk of future harm constituted withholding physical care.