State v. Wallace

122                         December 12, 2024                             No. 42

               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
                     STATE OF OREGON

                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Petitioner on Review,
                              v.
                 CHANCE NEAL WALLACE,
                   Respondent on Review.
          (CC 17CR27381) (CA A170354) (SC S069898)

    On review from the Court of Appeals.*
    Argued and submitted June 22, 2023.
   Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, Salem,
argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner on
review. Also on the briefs were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney
General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
   Shawn Wiley, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public
Defense Services, Salem, argued the cause and filed the
brief for respondent on review. Also on the briefs was Ernest
G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section.
  Before Flynn, Chief Justice, Duncan, Garrett, DeHoog,
Bushong, and Masih, Justices, and Walters, Senior Judge,
Justice pro tempore.*
    DEHOOG, J.
   The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed in part
and affirmed in part. The judgment of the circuit court
is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is
remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.



______________
    * Appeal from Jackson County Circuit Court, Lorenzo A. Mejia, Judge. 

, 

 (2022).
    ** James, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Nakamoto, Senior Judge, Justice pro tempore, participated in oral argument, but
did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cite as 

 (2024)   123
124                                                           State v. Wallace

           DeHOOG, J.
          Oregon law prohibits sexual conduct with a person
who is “considered incapable of consenting” because the per-
son is “[i]ncapable of appraising the nature of the [person’s]
conduct[.]” ORS 163.315(1)(b); ORS 163.305(3).1 At the time
of defendant’s alleged sexual offenses, the applicable stat-
utes expressly included intellectual disability as a potential
cause of a person’s inability to consent. ORS 163.315(1)(b)
(listing that factor). In this case, defendant did not dispute
that the alleged victim had a qualifying intellectual disabil-
ity, but he moved for judgment of acquittal on the ground
that no reasonable person could find that, as a result of that
intellectual disability, she was “incapable of appraising” the
nature of her conduct, as the state had alleged.
          The trial court denied defendant’s motion and a
jury convicted him of various first-degree sexual offenses.
Defendant appealed. Relying on this court’s prior interpreta-
tion of the relevant statutes in State v. Reed, 

, 

 (2005), defendant argued that the state had failed to
affirmatively establish that the victim’s intellectual disabil-
ity had rendered her “incapable” of appraising the nature of
her conduct. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals agreed
with defendant and reversed, concluding that the evidence
produced at trial (1) “require[d]” the finding that the alleged
victim “J” had understood that defendant had “initiated
     1
       Under the Oregon Criminal Code, various sex crimes are elevated to first-
degree offenses if, among other things, the victim is “incapable of consent[.]” E.g.,
ORS 163.375 (defining first-degree rape). In 2017, when the underlying events in
this case took place, a person could be deemed “incapable of consent by reason of
mental defect,” see, e.g., ORS 163.375(1)(d) (2015) (listing that factor), if the per-
son was “incapable of appraising the nature of the [person’s] conduct.” See ORS
163.315(1)(b) (2015) (“A person is considered incapable of consenting to a sexual
act if the person is * * * [m]entally defective[.]”); ORS 163.305(3) (2015) (defin-
ing “mentally defective” as being rendered “incapable of appraising the nature
of the [person’s] conduct” by a “mental disease or defect”). Those statutes have
since been amended twice: once, in 2017, to replace the stigmatizing term “men-
tal disease or defect” with “qualifying mental disorder” throughout the Criminal
Code, Or Laws 2017, ch 364, §§ 2-17; 19-28, and a second time, in 2021, when the
legislature eliminated all related references to a person’s intellectual disability
but retained the provision that a person lacks capacity to consent if the person
is “incapable of appraising the nature of the [person’s] conduct[.]” Or Laws 2021,
ch 82, §§ 1-9. Unless otherwise indicated, references to the statutes in ORS chap-
ter 163 throughout this opinion are to the 2015 versions, which remained in effect
at the time of the charged crimes in 2017. We, however, use the terms “intellec-
tual disability” or “mental disability” in place of “mental disease or defect.”
Cite as 

 (2024)                                                     125

sexual activity” with her, and (2) was insufficient to support a
jury finding that, “because of her mental disability, J lacked
the ability to exercise judgment to consent to sexual conduct.”
State v. Wallace, 

, 

 (2022).
         The state petitioned for review, challenging the
Court of Appeals’ application of Reed and the statutes at issue.
In the state’s view, the Court of Appeals essentially under-
stood that a person is capable of “appraising the nature of the
person’s conduct” if the person is merely aware that another
person has initiated conduct that is “sexual in nature.” That
flawed understanding, the state contends, led to the errone-
ous determination that, on the record produced at trial, no
rational trier of fact could find that J had been incapable of
consenting to the conduct underlying defendant’s convictions.
We allowed review to consider those issues, and we now con-
clude that the Court of Appeals erred. As we explain below,
we conclude that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient
to permit a reasonable trier of fact to find, within the mean-
ing of the applicable statutes, that the victim lacked capacity
to appraise the nature of her conduct and, as a result, was
incapable of consent. Thus, the trial court did not err when it
denied defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on Counts
2 through 5,2 and we, therefore, reverse the decision of the
Court of Appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court as
to counts 2 and 4, and remand for further proceedings.3
                      I. BACKGROUND
         Because the issue on review arises from the trial
court’s denial of defendant’s motion for judgment of acquit-
tal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
     2
       Count 1 was charged under a “forcible compulsion” theory, ORS 163.375(1)
(a). Although, like Counts 3 through 5, Count 2 was charged under an “incapable
of consent” theory, the trial court merged the guilty verdict on Count 2 with the
guilty verdict on Count 1. The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s conviction
on Count 1, and defendant does not renew his challenge to that conviction on
review. We therefore do not disturb that aspect of the Court of Appeals’ decision.
     3
       In the Court of Appeals, defendant unsuccessfully raised various other
issues that are not at issue on review. However, because we now conclude that the
trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on Count
5, we must also address an issue that the Court of Appeals found unnecessary to
decide in light of its decision regarding defendant’s motion for judgment of acquit-
tal. As to that count, we reverse and remand defendant’s judgment of conviction
because it was the result of a nonunanimous guilty verdict. State v. Flores Ramos,

, 

 (2020).
126                                                          State v. Wallace

state to determine whether the evidence produced at trial
was sufficient to allow a rational trier of fact, drawing rea-
sonable inferences, to find the elements of the alleged crimes
beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Hedgpeth, 

, 

 (2019) (citing State v. Clemente-Perez, 

, 

 (2015)). We first describe the
evidence in accordance with that standard, then provide
additional background regarding the underlying statutes
and the trial and appellate court proceedings leading to our
review.
A. Trial Evidence
          At trial, the state presented the testimony of vari-
ous witnesses, including that of the victim, J, as well as a
recording of J’s forensic interview. J, who was 26 years old
at the time of the charged offenses, has an intellectual dis-
ability. J’s IQ is 62, due in part to fetal alcohol syndrome and
in part to scar tissue on her brain resulting from an illness
that she suffered during infancy. J has been diagnosed with
“mild mental retardation.”4 J manages her own personal
care, but she cannot live alone, shop for herself, manage her
own transportation or finances, or socialize without sup-
port. She has poor short-term memory, can only go places
if accompanied by a “trusted individual,” and becomes over-
whelmed and “shut[s] down” if tasks are not explained to her
in sufficiently straightforward terms. Additionally, J tends
to view the motivations of others in an optimistic light, which
puts her at a heightened risk of being taken advantage of.
          J lives with her grandmother, Boothe, who is her
legal guardian and has cared for J full time since she was
three months old. J works a part-time retail job with the
help of a job coach provided by a nonprofit organization. She
takes a prearranged taxi to and from work because she can-
not negotiate the bus system. J’s work and transportation
     4
       Like the term “mental defect,” the terms “mentally retarded” and “men-
tal retardation” have been recognized as stigmatizing and otherwise harmful to
individuals with intellectual disabilities. See, e.g., Pub L 111-256, §§ 1-4, 124
Stat 2643 (2010) (enacting “Rosa’s Law”; changing references in federal law to
mental retardation and individuals who are mentally retarded to “intellectual
disability” and “individuals with intellectual disabilities.”). We use the dated ter-
minology in this opinion only to the extent necessary to discuss the manner in
which J’s intellectual disability was described in the trial court and other discus-
sions of similar conditions in the relevant case law.
Cite as 

 (2024)                                                   127

arrangements were established for J by her state-provided
intellectual disability case manager, who coordinates com-
munity integration, socialization, and safety support ser-
vices for J. At the time of trial, J had been working for two
years but had, over that time, completed only two work
shifts without any assistance.
         According to J’s case manager, she is a “concrete
thinker” who thinks in “very black and white” terms. That
is, J has difficulty with “abstract thought” and, in conversa-
tion, tends to “fixate” on tangible things without grasping
any broader significance of what is being said.
        Before entering the relationship that ultimately led
to defendant’s charges in this case, J had been curious about
sex and had learned a little about sexual conduct by watch-
ing movies. However, J’s “sex education” had been limited
to her mother telling her that sex was a man and woman
“making love” and her grandmother telling her to “wait
until she was married before having sex.”
         Defendant met J at the church that she attended
with her grandmother. Defendant started dating J a year
after the two became acquainted. Defendant was generally
aware of J’s intellectual difficulties, and J’s grandmother
had specifically told defendant that J had significant “navi-
gation” issues.5
         When the two of them began dating, defendant was 50
years old, but he told J that he was 30. Defendant attempted,
with mixed results, to control aspects of J’s life. For example,
defendant initially asked that J not tell her family or pastors
about their relationship, and she largely complied with that
request. J resisted, however, when defendant expressed pref-
erences as to how she dressed or kept her hair, asked her for
money, or asked that she refrain from using coloring books
made for adults, an activity that she enjoyed.
        During his relationship with J, defendant initi-
ated sexual activity with her on a number of occasions. In
one incident, defendant asked J to take off her clothes and
     5
       As an example of J’s difficulties, grandmother shared with defendant that,
if they were at the movies and J got up to use the restroom, she would not be able
to find her way back to her seat on her own.
128                                                       State v. Wallace

helped her to get undressed. J thought that defendant’s
request was strange, but, because she trusted defendant,
she let him remove her clothing. J testified that defendant
“took some pictures of [her] personal areas,” which she later
clarified were her breasts and her “virginity area,” the term
she used to describe her vagina. Defendant told J that he
took those pictures because “he wanted to look at [them] on
his phone.” When asked whether defendant’s explanation
had made sense to her, J testified, “Not really. It seemed,
seemed really uncomfortable and sickening[.]” J added that
it seemed “strange that he would want to take pictures of me
naked.”
          Defendant also put his face in J’s “virginity area,”
which did not “feel normal” to her and she did not like. J said
that it felt “scary” and that she had tried to back away, but
that defendant had pulled her back towards him by her legs.
She further testified that she could not remember whether
she had said anything to defendant about it, but she said, “I
remember I didn’t, I didn’t like it, and it didn’t feel right. I
did not felt [sic] right. It did not felt [sic] normal at all.” J also
testified that defendant had asked her to touch his testicles.
J said that “it felt uncomfortable,” but he had wanted her to
do it because, “to him, it felt good” and “was like a massage.”
         On another occasion, J recounted, defendant had
put “his dick in [her] mouth.” J said that defendant had
“got[ten that] idea” from a video of a woman having oral sex
with a man that defendant had watched on his phone. J tes-
tified that it “actually made me felt [sic] like I was going to
just gag, either gag or vomit,” and that she “felt disgusted
like this does not feel right and this does not feel normal.”
        J also described an incident in which, she said,
defendant had “pinned” her down and put his penis in
her “butt,” which had “hurt like hell.”6 She screamed, but
defendant put his hand over her mouth so that his room-
mate and neighbors would not hear her. Defendant stopped
assaulting J when she kicked him hard enough to get him to
back away. J described that incident—as well as others—as
    6
      J’s grandmother later determined that J was referring to defendant pene-
trating her vagina from behind, after she had drawn J a picture of the vagina and
the anus to help J understand the difference.
Cite as 

 (2024)                                   129

defendant “doing foreplay,” which was a term that defen-
dant had repeatedly used but that J did not understand.
She said that defendant had also used the word “foreplay” to
describe other acts that she did not like or understand, such
as having her massage his testicles. Even though J herself
described that “creepy and embarrassing” conduct as “fore-
play,” she “didn’t really know what that meant.”
          At trial, J explained her understanding that “sex”
means “male and female just making love,” but said that
she had not heard the term “sex education.” When asked
whether she had attended a sex education class in school,
J answered, “I don’t know.” And when asked what “making
love” means, J said that it was “[j]ust two people that truly
love each other and respect each other,” and when they “do
things they have in common * * * they go out to dates, they
go out to movies.” J understood “virginity” to “sort of” mean
that “the person has never experienced sex before another
virgin.” J had previously heard the word “rape” and under-
stood that “it means when the victim says no, it means no,”
but said that, growing up, she “didn’t have a whole lot of
learning process and what it really meant.” She did not
know the meanings of “coerce,” “ejaculate,” “sperm,” “ovula-
tion,” “fallopian tube,” or, as discussed, “foreplay.” She testi-
fied that “uterus” meant “where you urinate” and that her
“private part” was her “virginity area.” Finally, when asked
whether she knew “how to make a baby,” J answered that,
“if somebody truly loves each other, and have sex, then yeah
that’s—eventually the woman will become pregnant.”
         J’s testimony similarly reflected confusion with
respect to sexual decision making. For example, when
defense counsel asked J whether she thought that she
should be able to decide for herself whether to have sex with
someone, she answered, “Yes, you know, if I’m ready and if I
was married.” But when asked whether the church says that
people should not have sex before marriage, she gave a more
direct response, stating that it “seems like it’s the Christian
way.”
         Throughout her testimony, J appeared to have dif-
ficulty tracking timelines, such as her age and how long
she and defendant had dated, as well as how many times
130                                          State v. Wallace

incidents like those she described had occurred. Further,
from her testimony, the jury could reasonably have inferred
that, although J responded to questions regarding her
familiarity with sexual behavior and various reproductive
processes, she had difficulty understanding some of the
questions and only a limited understanding of the concepts
underlying them. Moreover, as the Court of Appeals noted,
the jury could readily infer that J’s intellectual limitations
would be “obvious” to another person after only a brief inter-
action. Wallace, 

. Finally, that evidence
could support inferences both that defendant knew about
those limitations and that J’s intellectual disability had ren-
dered her more vulnerable to manipulation than a person
without such a disability.
B.    Relevant Statutes
          The state charged defendant with various sexual
offenses that he had allegedly committed against J in early
2017. A jury subsequently convicted defendant of two counts
of first-degree rape, ORS 163.375(1)(a) and (d) (Counts 1 and
2, which merged into a single conviction on Count 1); two
counts of first-degree sodomy, ORS 163.405(1)(d) (Counts
3 and 4); and one count of first-degree sexual abuse, ORS
163.427(1)(a)(C) (Count 5).
         The state prosecuted Counts 2 through 5 under
the theory that J had been “incapable of consent by rea-
son of mental defect.” At the time of the charged conduct,
the statutes defining the specific offenses—ORS 163.375
(first-degree rape), ORS 163.405 (first-degree sodomy),
and ORS 163.427 (first-degree sexual abuse)—all provided
that the conduct that they prohibited constituted a first-
degree offense if the “victim [was] incapable of consent by
reason of mental defect, mental incapacitation or physical
helplessness[.]”
        ORS 163.315 and ORS 163.305 are related statutes.
They provide, first, when a person is deemed incapable of
consenting to a sexual act, ORS 163.315(1)(b) (a person is
incapable of consenting to a sexual act when, among other
circumstances, the person is “[m]entally defective”); and,
second, what “[m]entally defective” means, ORS 163.305(3)
Cite as 

 (2024)                                 131

(“ ‘Mentally defective’ means that a person suffers from a
mental disease or defect that renders the person incapable
of appraising the nature of the conduct of the person.”). The
text of those statutes is central to the parties’ dispute on
review.
C. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal
         At the conclusion of the state’s case-in-chief, defen-
dant moved for judgment of acquittal on Counts 2 through
5, citing Reed, 

. He argued that, although it
was “clear” that J had a limited vocabulary with which to
describe sexual conduct, she nevertheless had a sufficient
understanding of the conduct at issue to appraise its nature,
because she understood both that the conduct occurred in a
sexual context and that such conduct had potential short-
and long-term consequences. Thus, defendant contended,
the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish
that J had been incapable of consent.
         The trial court denied the motion, stating that it
found the state’s evidence to be “more compelling” than it
had anticipated when it heard a pretrial motion raising the
same arguments. Pointing to the overall circumstances, J’s
forensic interview, her related testimony, and defendant’s
own, inculpatory statements, the trial court concluded that
the state had produced sufficient evidence to establish,
under ORS 163.305(3), that J had been incapable of apprais-
ing the nature of her conduct.
D. The Court of Appeals’ Opinions
         Defendant appealed, assigning error to the trial
court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. In
a split decision, a panel of the Court of Appeals held that
this court’s opinion in Reed requires “more than generalized
proof of mental disability,” and instead requires proof that
the victim lacked the “ ‘particularized ability’ to understand
the nature of the conduct that defendant initiated, i.e., to
understand that it was sexual, or to exercise judgment to
make the choice to consent to it.” Wallace, 

-
16 (citing State v. Tilly, 

, 

,
rev den, 

 (2015)).
132                                          State v. Wallace

         Applying its understanding of Reed, the Court of
Appeals majority reversed defendant’s convictions, conclud-
ing that (1) the record “require[d] the finding that J under-
stood that defendant had initiated sexual activity with her,”
and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding
that, “because of her mental disability, J lacked the ability
to exercise judgment to consent to sexual conduct.” Wallace,

. The majority acknowledged that, due
to defendant’s “manipulations and misrepresentations,” J
may not have even understood that the activity that defen-
dant had initiated with her was “sex” and not “foreplay”; it
emphasized, however, that there was no evidence that the
victim’s intellectual disability prevented her from “under-
standing the sexual nature of [defendant’s] conduct.” 

.
         Judge Mooney concurred in part and dissented in
part, reasoning that a person’s awareness of sexual behav-
iors or even an interest in learning about sex does not com-
pel a jury to find that the person has “sufficiently-developed
adaptive skills or the judgment necessary to negotiate the
complex dynamics of a sexual relationship[.]” 

(Mooney, P.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
And here, given the “evidence of J’s compromised intellec-
tual capacity, mild mental retardation diagnosis,” and “lim-
ited adaptive skills,” Judge Mooney would have held that
the jury reasonably could have found that, “because of her
mental disability, [J] was not able to consent to sex with
defendant.” 

        We allowed the state’s petition for review.
                       II. ANALYSIS
         Here the fundamental dispute is whether, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, a rea-
sonable juror could find that J’s intellectual disability ren-
dered her “incapable of appraising the nature of [her own]
conduct.” See ORS 163.305(3) (defining “[m]entally defec-
tive”); ORS 163.315(1)(b) (providing that a person is “incapa-
ble of consenting to a sexual act” if the person is “[m]entally
defective”); see also Reed, 

 (explaining that, for
purposes of ORS 163.305(3), “the person” in “conduct of the
Cite as 

 (2024)                                 133

person” refers to the alleged victim). When, as here, a trial
court has denied a motion for judgment of acquittal based
upon a disputed interpretation of the statute defining the
relevant offense, we must first determine whether that court
correctly construed the statute, a ruling that we review for
errors of law. State v. Haley, 

, 

(2023). Then, based upon our interpretation of the statute,
we must determine whether the evidence was sufficient to
establish every element of the charged offense. We proceed
with those inquiries in turn.
         The first inquiry presents a question of statutory
interpretation, which we address by applying the well-
established framework articulated in PGE v. Bureau of
Labor and Industries, 

, 

 (1993), and
modified in State v. Gaines, 

, 

 (2009).
In applying that framework, we seek to determine the leg-
islature’s intended meaning by examining the statutory
text in context, taking into account any legislative history
that we find helpful. Gaines, 

; see also ORS
174.020(1)(a) (“In the construction of a statute, a court shall
pursue the intention of the legislature if possible.”). When
interpreting a statute, we also consider any earlier opinions
in which we have construed the statute itself, its statutory
predecessors, or related statutes. See Sherman v. Dept. of
Human Services, 

, 

 (2021) (con-
sidering case law at first level of Gaines analysis); Polacek
and Polacek, 

, 

 (2010) (rele-
vant statutory context includes other provisions of same or
related statutes, the preexisting statutory framework, and
prior opinions of this court interpreting the pertinent text).
         Like the Court of Appeals and both parties, we find
considerable guidance in our construction of the relevant
statutes in Reed. However, we understand that decision and
its significance here somewhat differently than either party.
Moreover, based on our understanding of Reed and the stat-
utes at issue here, we conclude that the Court of Appeals
erred in holding that the evidence in this case was insuf-
ficient to raise a jury question regarding J’s ability to con-
sent—that is, whether J was capable or incapable of apprais-
ing the nature of her conduct sufficiently to consent to the
134                                                  State v. Wallace

sexual conduct at issue. We therefore conclude that the trial
court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for judgment
of acquittal on that ground.
A.       State v. Reed
         We agree, as the Court of Appeals and the parties
have recognized, that this court’s opinion in Reed provides
the proper starting point for our analysis. See Sherman, 

; State v. Toevs, 

, 

(1998) (“Case law interpreting the statute at issue * * * is con-
sidered at our first level of analysis.”). Although the parties
both expressly rely on Reed, they advance different argu-
ments as to its application. Thus, we begin our assessment of
ORS 163.305(3) and the meaning of “incapable of appraising
the nature of [the person’s] conduct” by reviewing Reed.
         In Reed, this court considered whether the trial
court had erred in denying a motion for judgment of acquit-
tal as to various sexual offenses that the defendant had
allegedly committed against his adult daughter, who, like
J in this case, had been diagnosed with “mild mental retar-
dation.” 

. The analysis in Reed turned
on the intended meaning of “incapable of consent,” which,
at the time—as with defendant’s charges—could be estab-
lished by proving that the victim was “mentally defective.”

. In turn, “mentally defective” was defined in
the applicable version of ORS 163.305(3) as “suffer[ing] from
a mental disease or defect that renders the person incapable
of appraising the nature of the conduct of the person.”
         In evaluating that provision, this court identified
the “key words” of the statute as “incapable,” “appraising,”
“nature,” and “conduct.” Reed, 399 Or at 244. Because the
legislature had not provided definitions for those terms, this
court looked to “common meanings” of the text, id. (citing
PGE, 

), which included the following:
     •    “ ‘Incapable’ means ‘lacking capacity, ability, * * * qual-
          ification for the purpose or end in view[;] * * * lacking
          legal qualification or power esp. because of some fun-
          damental legal disqualification[;] lacking the personal
          ability, * * * or understanding required in some legal
          matter[.]’ ”
Cite as 

 (2024)                                    135

  •   “ ‘Appraise’ means ‘to judge and analyze the worth, sig-
      nificance or status of[.]’ ”
  •   “ ‘Nature’ means ‘the essential character or constitution
      of something[.]’ ”
  •   “ ‘Conduct’ means ‘a mode or standard of personal
      behavior esp. as based on moral principles[.]’ ”
Reed, 

 (quoting Webster’s Third New Int’l
Dictionary 1141, 105, 1507, 473 (unabridged ed 2002) (brack-
ets and omissions in Reed)).
         Applying those definitions, this court concluded that
the applicable version of ORS 163.305(3) referred to a “men-
tal defect that prevents one from appraising the nature of
one’s own conduct.” 

 Further, “[t]he ‘appraisal’ must con-
stitute an exercise of judgment and the making of choices
based on an understanding of the nature of one’s own con-
duct.” 

 And, in the circumstances of that case—which to a
large extent mirrored the circumstances present here—”we
view[ed] that standard in the context of interactions with
other persons, such as offers and proposals from other per-
sons to engage in certain kinds of conduct.” 

         We acknowledged in Reed that “the statutory defini-
tion of mentally defective does not support the notion that a
person who has a mental disability is necessarily incapable
of consenting to sexual relations under all circumstances.”

 Rather, we explained, “a person who can understand
that another person has initiated some kind of sexual activ-
ity with that person may be capable of appraising the nature
of the conduct and, thus, may be capable of consenting to a
sexual act * * *[.]” 

 (emphases added). Notably, however,
we did not suggest that a person who understands that
another person has initiated sexual activity would necessar-
ily be capable of appraising that conduct so as to preclude a
finding that the person is incapable of consenting to it.
         Ultimately, this court’s decision in Reed that the
trial court had erred did not turn on the precise mean-
ing of “incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct
of the person.” Rather, because the applicable version of
ORS 163.307(3) required that the person’s incapacity be the
product of the person’s mental condition, see Reed, 

                                          State v. 

 (noting state’s burden of establishing by affirmative
evidence that the alleged victim’s intellectual disability had
“rendered her incapable of consent”), and because the evi-
dence at trial failed to make that showing, this court con-
cluded that the state had not established that “necessary
link,” id. at 246. It was on that basis that we reversed the
trial court’s ruling. Id. at 247.
         That caveat notwithstanding, we understand Reed
to have reached the following conclusions. First, to obtain
a conviction for a first-degree sex offense on the theory
that the alleged victim was incapable of consenting to the
charged conduct, the state must produce sufficient evidence
for a rational juror to find that the victim was incapable of
either (1) understanding the sexual nature of that conduct;
or (2) exercising judgment in choosing whether to partici-
pate in the conduct based on that understanding. Second,
for purposes of the statutes in effect at the time of Reed and
the charged acts in this case, the state must also prove that
the alleged victim has a qualifying intellectual disability.
And third, the evidence must support the finding that the
alleged victim’s incapacity either to understand the nature
of the conduct or to exercise judgment and choose whether
to engage in that conduct resulted from that disability.
B.    The Parties’ Positions on Review
         On review, neither party contends that Reed was
wrongly decided and should be overruled. Rather, the par-
ties disagree about the extent to which Reed’s interpretation
of the statutory provisions resolves the question presented
in this case. The state notes that, under Reed, capability to
consent to sexual conduct requires more than a mere under-
standing that the conduct is sexual in character. See 339
Or at 244 (so stating). The state emphasizes that capabil-
ity to consent also requires the ability to exercise judgment
in choosing whether to consent. See id. (“The ‘appraisal’
must constitute an exercise of judgment and the making of
choices based on an understanding of the nature of one’s
own conduct.”) And, in the state’s view, the required ability
to exercise judgment means that the person understands
the societal and moral implications of the conduct at issue,
or, as the state characterizes it, its “essential character.”
Cite as 

 (2024)                                 137

The state argues that, unless a person understands the
“essential character” of conduct at the time it occurs, they
are incapable of consenting to it.
         Defendant disagrees with the state’s understand-
ing of Reed. He does not dispute that, under the reasoning
of that opinion, capability of appraising sexual conduct “can
involve an understanding of the potential personal or social
consequences of such conduct, such as pregnancy or social
disapproval of the sexual relationship.” See 

 (not-
ing the alleged victim’s apparent “capacity to consent and to
understand that having sexual relations with [the] defen-
dant was wrong”). Defendant rejects, however, any sugges-
tion that, to be capable of consent, one must be “capable of
understanding all of the possible moral, social, and personal
consequences of a decision to engage in sexual conduct[.]”
Defendant also does not dispute that the relevant time for
evaluating whether an alleged victim is capable of consent-
ing is the time of the sexual conduct. But, he contends, by
focusing on an alleged victim’s contemporaneous under-
standing of the specific sexual conduct at issue (as well as
of the broader moral implications of that conduct), the state
misunderstands what it means to be “capable.” Defendant
understands the state’s argument to mean that a person
could lack the capability to consent at one time but then
acquire that capability at a later time by coming to under-
stand the “essential character” of their conduct through
education, experience, or otherwise. In defendant’s opinion,
the state’s argument conflates understanding-in-fact with
capability of understanding, only the latter of which, he
argues, is necessary for a person to be capable of consent.
         In our view, Reed does not fully answer the stat-
utory interpretation questions presented in this case. We
agree that, under Reed, a person who understands that con-
duct is sexual in character may nonetheless be incapable
of consenting to it. That follows from Reed’s determination
that, to have that capability, the person must also be able to
exercise judgment in choosing whether to consent. 339 Or
at 244. But Reed says little about what it means to be able
to exercise judgment, including whether and to what extent
an ability to understand the moral consequences of sexual
138                                                         State v. Wallace

conduct is essential to appraising the nature of that con-
duct. Similarly, Reed did not specifically consider whether,
to prove that an alleged victim was incapable of consenting
to sexual conduct, the state must show that the person can
never acquire the knowledge or skills necessary to appraise
the nature of that conduct, or only that the person did not
have those tools at the time of the alleged offense. Thus, we
continue our examination of the relevant statutes with the
parties’ respective arguments in mind.
C. “Incapable of Consent” Amplified
        As explained above, at the time of defendant’s
charged conduct, various sex crimes were elevated to first-
degree offenses if the victim was “incapable of consent by
reason of a mental defect.” Although “mental defect” had
no statutory definition, its role in the statutory scheme was
made clear by two other statutes, ORS 163.315(1)(b) and
ORS 163.305(3).7 First, ORS 163.315(1) provided in relevant
part that:
       “(1) A person is considered incapable of consenting to a
    sexual act if the person is:
        “* * * * *
        “(b)   Mentally defective * * *[.]”
In turn, ORS 163.305(3) defined “[m]entally defective” as
“suffer[ing] from a mental disease or defect that renders the
person incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct of
the person.” Together, those statutes provided that “[a] per-
son is considered incapable of consenting to a sexual act”
if the person “suffers from a mental disease or defect that
renders the person incapable of appraising the nature of the
conduct of the person.”
         Defendant does not dispute that J had a qualifying
intellectual disability under the law then in effect. Thus, as in
Reed, we focus our analysis on other aspects of ORS 163.305(3),
    7
       Although, as noted, the relevant substantive statutes in effect at the time
of the alleged offenses referenced “mental defect[s],” which is not defined, it is
undisputed that the meaning and application of that term are provided by ORS
163.315(1) (stating that a person is “incapable of consent” if the person is “men-
tally defective”), and ORS 163.305(3) (defining “mentally defective”). We therefore
focus on those two provisions.
Cite as 

 (2024)                                    139

beginning with the terms “incapable” and “apprais[e].”
Starting with “apprais[e],” this court concluded in Reed that,
when referring to whether a person is capable of appraising
their conduct, the “apprais[al]” “must constitute an exercise
of judgment and the making of choices based on an under-
standing of the nature of one’s own conduct.” Reed, 

. The exercise-of-judgment component reflected the defini-
tion of “appraise.” See Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 105
(unabridged ed 2002) (defining “[a]ppraise” as “to judge and
analyze the worth, significance or status of”). And, although
none of the terms or definitions that this court considered in
Reed expressly referred to “the making of choices,” the stat-
utory context in which “apprais[e]” appears relates to one’s
capacity to give consent—that is, capacity to choose whether
to allow or engage in sexual conduct. See Reed, 

(describing inquiry as whether the alleged victim had the
“ability to make choices about having sexual relations with
others”). Thus, the relevant exercise of judgment relates to
that choice—the decision whether to consent to sexual con-
duct with another—and the statute’s focus is on the effect that
the person’s intellectual disability has on that decision.
          In that context, the term “incapable” likewise focuses
on the person’s decision whether to consent to specific sexual
conduct, which would seem to be the product of the person’s
abilities at the time they give consent, not abilities that the
person may or may not be able to acquire. See ORS 163.315(1)
(defining when a person is “incapable of consenting to a sex-
ual act” (emphasis added)); ORS 163.305(3) (referring to effect
of a person’s mental disability on “the person[‘s capability] of
appraising the nature of the conduct of the person” (empha-
sis added)). That understanding of “incapable” is consistent
with our examination of the term in Reed. There, we noted
that the ordinary meanings of “incapable” include “ ‘lacking
capacity, ability * * * [or] qualification for the purpose or end
in view,’ ” as well as “ ‘lacking the * * * understanding required
in some legal matter[.]’ ” Reed, 

 (citing Webster’s
at 1141). And by equating “incapable” with a lack of “capac-
ity,” “ability,” or “understanding,” that definition supports the
idea that a person is “incapable” of giving consent if the per-
son lacks the intellectual tools needed to exercise judgment
with regard to that decision—”the purpose or end in view,”
140                                            State v. Wallace

Webster’s at 1141—and not only if the person is incapable of
ever acquiring those tools.
         Indeed, our decision in Reed suggested as much by
stating that, to establish that a person is incapable of consent
by reason of an intellectual disability, the state must prove
that the person’s disability “prevents [them] from appraising
the nature of [their] own conduct.” 339 Or at 244. There is
a substantial difference between an intellectual disability
that prevents a person from making an appraisal, on the one
hand, and an intellectual disability that prevents a person
from acquiring the ability to appraise, on the other. Thus,
although it appears that a person who is presently incapable
of giving consent might at some later time be found to have
that capability, see Webster’s at 3 (defining “ability,” in part,
as an “acquired proficiency”), the statute’s focus seems to be
whether a person presently possesses the requisite degree
of understanding to make an informed choice. See ORS
163.305(3) (relevant inquiry is whether the person is “inca-
pable of appraising the nature of the conduct of the person”).
          That understanding—that to be capable of consent,
one must have the present ability to appraise, not merely the
potential to acquire that ability—also makes sense, given the
broader context of consent with regard to sexual offenses.
Common sense alone tells us that, in precluding certain
individuals from consenting to sexual conduct, the legisla-
ture sought to protect persons whose intellectual disabilities
might otherwise render them vulnerable to sexually preda-
tory behavior. In that regard, it would make no difference
that a person presently incapable of giving consent might
acquire that capability at some later time. That is, a person’s
potential to someday acquire the requisite ability would seem
to have little if any bearing on the person’s current vulnera-
bility to predatory sexual behavior. Thus, to the extent that
defendant contends that a person is not incapable of consent
if their intellectual disability does not preclude them from
developing the ability to appraise their conduct the text and
context of ORS 163.315(1)(b) strongly suggest otherwise.
         Turning to what a person must be capable of
appraising to give valid consent—the “nature” of the per-
son’s conduct—we noted in Reed that “nature” means “ ‘the
Cite as 

 (2024)                                                    141

essential character or constitution of something.’ ” 339 Or
at 244 (quoting Webster’s at 1507). The majority opinion in
Reed did not elaborate on that definition, such as by further
explaining what constitutes the “essential character” of con-
duct, so it is not clear whether the majority viewed the “essen-
tial character” of sexual activity to be anything more than
that—sexual.8 Nonetheless, the state urges us to conclude
that, under Reed, “essential character” means more than
merely sexual. Concerned that the Court of Appeals’ opin-
ion unduly focused on whether J understood that defendant
had initiated sexual activity with her, the state advances a
more robust understanding of Reed, one that expands upon
the meaning of “the nature of the conduct.” Emphasizing
Reed’s observation that the nature of something is defined
as its “essential character,” the state offers its view of what
that “essential character” is for purposes of ORS 163.305(3).
In the state’s view, the essential character of a sexual act is
more than its “sexual” quality. Rather, to understand the
“essential character” of a sexual act, the state contends, one
must recognize the “significance” of engaging in it, which
the state argues includes two things: (1) the potential per-
sonal, social, and moral consequences of engaging in the
conduct; and (2) an awareness that the person has the right
to refuse to engage in that conduct.9
          As noted, defendant agrees that a person’s aware-
ness that sexual conduct has potential personal and social
consequences may play some role in whether the person is
capable of appraising its nature. He disagrees, however,
that “moral” consequences are an appropriate consideration.
And, to the extent that the state may contend that a person
     8
       As noted earlier, the majority in Reed did state that “a person who can
understand that another person has initiated some kind of sexual activity with
that person may be capable of appraising the nature of the conduct,” but it did
not explicitly equate the “nature” of conduct with its characterization of “sexual
activity.” 339 Or at 244.
     9
       The state draws its understanding in part by relying on the dissenting opin-
ion in Reed. In that opinion, the dissent agreed with the majority’s interpretation
of the statutory text but disagreed as to its application. 339 Or at 249 (Kistler,
J., dissenting). The dissent itself did not explicitly expand upon the meaning of
“nature” or “essential character.” Rather, based on the majority’s observation
that “appraise” means “to judge and analyze the worth, significance, or status
of,” the dissent characterized the majority’s standard as asking “whether the
person is capable of assessing the personal and social consequences of his or her
decision to engage in that activity.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
142                                          State v. Wallace

must understand all personal and social consequences of a
sexual activity, defendant disagrees with that as well.
         As an initial matter, we agree that, when used in
conjunction with “apprais[e]” in ORS 163.305(3), the “nature”
of a sexual act is most likely something more than merely
its sexual character. As we have explained, ORS 163.305(3)
requires an ability to appraise conduct, which, as the court
held in Reed, in turn requires an ability to exercise judg-
ment regarding that conduct, not simply the ability to know
that the conduct is sexual. Thus, we agree with the state
that the ability to recognize that another person has initi-
ated conduct that is “sexual” is not the same as being capa-
ble of appraising that conduct. That is, the mere awareness
that conduct is sexual does not enable a person to judge its
“significance.” See Reed, 

 (defining “appraise”).
         That preliminary conclusion does not resolve the
parties’ larger dispute—whether, for a person to be capa-
ble of consenting to conduct within the meaning of ORS
163.315(1), it is necessary that they be able to recognize the
“moral” implications of that conduct. Although the majority
in Reed arguably touched on such implications when review-
ing the sufficiency of the evidence in that case, see 

 (noting alleged victim’s recognition that “having sexual
relations with defendant was wrong”), that opinion does not
indicate whether a person’s understanding of those implica-
tions plays a necessary role in assessing whether the person
is capable of consent. Because the text and context of ORS
163.315(1) do not provide much guidance regarding the leg-
islature’s intent in that regard, we turn to the legislative
history for further clues about the intended meaning of the
statutory phrase.
D. Legislative History
        The legislative history of ORS 163.315 and ORS
163.305 provides a little guidance. Those provisions were
originally enacted as part of the 1971 revision of the
Criminal Code as proposed by the Criminal Law Revision
Commission (Commission). Or Laws 1971, ch 743, §§ 104,
105. This court has long recognized that the records of the
Commission and its subcommittees “provide a rich source
Cite as 

 (2024)                                 143

for determination of the drafters’ intent.” State v. Garcia,

, 

 (1980). When considering
those records, we generally “assume in the absence of other
legislative history that the Legislative Assembly accepted
the Commission’s explanations.” State v. Woodley, 

, 

 (1988); see State v. Henderson, 

, 

 (2019) (stating the same); see also
State v. Carpenter, 

, 497 n 4, 

 (2019)
(“When evaluating statutes developed by the Criminal Law
Revision Commission, we look to both the commentary and
the discussions that preceded the adoption of the final draft
as legislative history for the resulting laws.”).
         Although it is not directly at issue in this case, we
note that the definition of “mentally defective” was first pro-
posed at a May 1969 subcommittee meeting without substan-
tive discussion. Minutes, Criminal Law Revision Commission,
Subcommittee No. 2, May 3, 1969, 2; Criminal Law Revision
Commission, Article 13, Preliminary Draft No. 1, Jan 1969.
That definition also was not discussed at subsequent full
Commission and subcommittee meetings, and it remained
essentially unchanged at the time of its approval by the
full Commission in January 1970. Minutes, Criminal Law
Revision Commission, Jan 9, 1970, 5; Criminal Law Revision
Commission, Article 13, Preliminary Draft No. 3, Dec 1969.
         The commentary accompanying the definition of
“mentally defective” explains that it states in the “language
of contemporary psychiatry when a person is, by reason of
mental disease or defect, incapable of consenting to a sexual
act.” Commentary to Criminal Law Revision Commission
Proposed Oregon Criminal Code, Final Draft and Report,
§ 104, 104-05 (July 1970) (citing Michigan Revised Criminal
Code § 2301 (e)). According to the commentary, that defini-
tion, along with definitions for “mentally incapacitated” and
“physically helpless,” were taken from the Michigan Revised
Criminal Code. Id.
         The commentary further explains that, although
the terms “mentally defective,” “mentally incapacitated,”
and “physically helpless” are “new to the statutory phrase-
ology of Oregon, the concepts which they describe are not
foreign to factors which the law has long recognized as
144                                             State v. Wallace

affecting one’s capacity to consent.” Id. at 106-07. It notes
that, as early as 1899, Oregon recognized the “inability of
[persons with intellectual disabilities] to consent.” Id. at 107
(citing State v. Lee, 

, 

 (1899)).
   “The rule was early established * * * that the seeming
   acquiescence of a [person with an intellectual disability] or
   of very tender years to an act of sexual intercourse afforded
   no defense to an action of rape, because such [a person],
   being ignorant of the nature of the act, was incapable of
   yielding consent, from a defect of understanding.”

 (emphasis in original).
         The commentary goes on to explain that, under the
draft, if that “defect of understanding” renders a person
incapable of appraising the nature of that person’s conduct,
they are “in law unable to effectively consent.” 

 Although,
consistently with our earlier assessment, the reference to
the person’s “defect of understanding” arguably points to
the immediate effect that a person’s mental disability may
have on their decision whether to consent, it does little to
clarify whether the legislature intended the statutes to pro-
tect only those whose mental disabilities render them per-
manently incapable of appraising the nature of sexual con-
duct, or what exactly that appraisal entails.
         What is more helpful is that the commentary next
discusses two cases regarding the mental capacity required
by law to classify a person as “[intellectually disabled].” 

(citing 

 (originally published in 1934)). The com-
mentary contrasts an Iowa case, State v. Haner, 

, 

 (1919), with a Texas case, Lee v. State,
43 Tex Crim Rep 285, 

 (1901). The commentary
characterizes the determining factor in Haner as “the lack
of mental capacity to know the right or wrong of the sexual
conduct,” whereas it describes Lee as requiring the show-
ing of a mind “so defective as to lack power to give or with-
hold consent.” Commentary § 105 at 107 (emphasis added).
It further states that the Haner rule “closely approximates
the rule” in the draft, whereas the Lee rule “would in fact
abolish the legal conclusion of lack of consent of a [person
with an intellectual disability] by requiring that no power
to consent be present.” Id.
Cite as 

 (2024)                                                       145

         In Haner, the court concluded that the Iowa legisla-
ture had intended its statute to protect both those who were
incapable of resisting sexual conduct and those who, “while
having some degree of intellectual power and some capac-
ity for instruction and improvement,” lacked the “mental
strength” to offer effectual resistance to sexual advances. 

, 173 NW at 226. The court went on to state that
such persons would include individuals who are “so far below
the average in mental strength” that they are “incapable of
knowing or realizing the moral quality of their act[.]” Id.
         The commentary’s observation that Haner “closely”
approximates the commission’s rule is informative. That
observation—and particularly the commentary’s further
explanation that, under Haner, the determining factor had
been whether the alleged victim lacked the mental capacity
to know the right or wrong of the sexual conduct—provides
some support for the state’s argument that the ability to
“apprais[e] the nature of the conduct” as described in ORS
163.305(3) includes the ability to consider the implications of
engaging in sexual conduct, not just to recognize that an act
is “sexual.” The commentary’s reference to our own Lee deci-
sion arguably reflects a similar concern for individuals who
may recognize sexual conduct as such but who nonetheless
are deemed incapable of consenting to it.10
           We caution, however, that, although the commen-
tary and the cases it cites refer to person’s ability to recog-
nize whether sexual conduct is right or wrong—its “moral
quality”—the focus of the statutes at issue is the alleged
victim’s capacity to exercise judgment regarding proposed
conduct, and not whether others might view the resulting
decision as morally “correct.” As the commentary empha-
sizes, “ ‘[l]ack of capacity to appraise the nature of [the per-
son’s] conduct’ does not include appraisal involving value
     10
        This court’s opinion in Lee did not involve the capacity of adults with intel-
lectual disabilities to consent to sexual conduct. Rather, that case discussed the
presumed incapacity of children below a certain age to “consent to an act which is
palpably wrong, both in morals and in law.” Lee, 

; see also 

 (discuss-
ing age at which one is presumed to be capable of “consenting to that particular
immoral act which, when discovered, ostracizes [them] from good society”). But,
at least in that context, the court and, by implication, the legislature, appear to
have viewed valid consent as requiring a recognition of more than the sexual
character of conduct.
146                                          State v. Wallace

judgments * * *.” Commentary §§ 109-11 at 112. Although
that comment is arguably in tension with the commentary’s
earlier focus on whether a person can recognize conduct as
right or wrong, we understand the latter comment to refer
to external notions of morality—whether those of a person’s
family or community or those of a court or jury—which do
not control whether an alleged victim can or has validly con-
sented to sexual conduct. What matters is whether they are
capable of exercising their own judgment regarding consent.
Though, as the state argues and defendant appears to agree,
that exercise of judgment may well involve some assessment
of the potential personal and social consequences of engag-
ing in sexual conduct, the ultimate question is whether the
person is capable of taking such consequences into consid-
eration in deciding whether to consent, and not whether the
person’s ultimate decision is subjectively right or wrong in
anyone else’s view.
         Relatedly, the commentary suggests that, to the
extent that a person must be aware that sexual conduct has
personal and social consequences to be capable of consent-
ing to it, they need not be cognizant of all such potential
consequences. In addition to rejecting the notion of “value
judgments,” the legislature made it clear that the ability to
consent does not require the “consideration of remote con-
sequences of the immediate act.” Commentary §§ 109-11 at
112. That express reference to “remote consequences” sug-
gests that there are reasonable limits to how extensively a
person must understand the potential consequences of sex-
ual conduct before being deemed capable of consent. Thus,
we agree with defendant that a person may be capable of
consenting to sexual conduct even if the person does not
understand—or is not even capable of understanding—all
of the potential personal or social consequences associated
with it, so long as their understanding is sufficient to allow
them to form a judgment in light of those kinds of concerns.
        As for the scope of a person’s incapacity, and
whether it is assessed with regard to the person’s ability
to ever acquire capacity or only with regard to the specific
instance of conduct at issue, the legislative history of a sep-
arate provision in ORS 163.315(1)—one related to mental
Cite as 

 (2024)                                  147

incapacitation—supports the state’s argument that the leg-
islature did not intend to require the state to prove that a
person would never be able to appraise the nature of their
conduct.
         When originally proposed, “mentally incapacitated”
was defined as “rendered temporarily incapable of apprais-
ing or controlling his conduct.” Criminal Law Revision
Commission, Article 13, Preliminary Draft No. 1, Jan 1969.
At a July 1969 full commission meeting, two commission
members (Judge James Burns and Bruce Spaulding) asked
why the definition of “mentally incapacitated” referred to
“temporary incapability.” Minutes, Criminal Law Revision
Commission, July 19, 1969, 3. The chairman explained that
“it was intended to refer to incapacity caused by hypnosis,
narcotics or alcohol, all of which would be temporary in
nature.” 

 Spauling argued that if someone were able to
“permanently incapacitate” another person with, for exam-
ple, an overdose of narcotics, he too should be guilty of the
offense. Another member moved to remove “temporarily,”
and the motion carried. 

 That change indicates that the
legislature understood “incapacity” to have potential tempo-
ral implications. In the Final Draft Report, the commission
appears to have reverted to its original position, as the final
version added that “[m]entally incapacitated means that a
person is rendered incapable of appraising or controlling his
conduct at the time of the alleged offense * * *.” Commentary
§ 104 at 104 (emphasis added); see also id. § 105 at 106 (clar-
ifying that a person is “mentally incapacitated * * * at the
time of the alleged offense” when that person is “rendered
temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his con-
duct” (emphases added)). Those changes also suggests that
the legislature recognized that, if it wanted to limit incapac-
ity to one time or another—or one form or another, such as
present or permanent—it would be better to explicitly state
that qualifier, something that it chose not to do with regard
to the consent provision at issue here.
E.   Summary of Statutory Interpretation
        Based on the foregoing assessment of the text, con-
text, and relevant legislative history of ORS 163.305(3) and
ORS 163.315(1)(b), we adhere to our articulation of their
148                                                            State v. Wallace

meanings in Reed, with some clarification. As we concluded
in Reed, for an alleged victim to be capable of consenting to
a sexual act, they must be capable of appraising the nature
of their conduct, and that “ ‘appraisal’ must constitute an
exercise of judgment and the making of choices based on an
understanding of the nature of one’s own conduct.” 339 Or
at 244. We clarify that whether a person is capable of mak-
ing that appraisal may include an assessment of whether
the person recognizes that the conduct at issue has poten-
tial personal and social consequences, but no specific under-
standing or consideration is determinative—what matters
is whether there is a basis for the jury to conclude that the
person was incapable of exercising judgment regarding the
significance of that conduct. Further, whether a person is
capable of appraising conduct is evaluated at the time of the
conduct and depends on whether the person is capable of
appraising that conduct. The state is not required to prove
that the person’s intellectual disability permanently pre-
vents them from acquiring that capability, but only that it
prevented them from appraising the nature of the conduct at
issue. Finally, as Reed specifically held, to rely on the theory
that an alleged victim was incapable of consenting because
of an intellectual disability, the state must establish a causal
connection between that disability and the person’s incapa-
bility of consenting to sexual conduct. Id. at 245-46.11
F.    Application to this Case
         Having interpreted the statute, we turn to whether
the trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion for judg-
ment of acquittal, that is, whether the state’s evidence was
legally sufficient to permit a rational jury to find that J was
incapable of consent under the statute as construed. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with defendant, holding
that the state’s evidence was insufficient as a matter of law
    11
       In his response brief to this court, defendant argues for the first time that,
as in Reed, the state in this case failed to establish that J’s intellectual disability
rendered her incapable of consenting to defendant’s conduct; that is, the state
did not establish that “necessary link.” Reed, 

 (so describing
the required causal connection). Because defendant has neither preserved that
argument nor asked that we review it as plain error, and because, in any event,
that requirement is in question following the more recent statutory change, ___
Or at ___ n 1 (slip op at 1 n 1) (discussing statutory change eliminating specific
reference to intellectual disability), we do not consider it further here.
Cite as 

 (2024)                                                    149

to establish that J was incapable of consenting to the sexual
acts that formed the basis of defendant’s charges. Wallace,

. As noted above, in reviewing whether
the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury under the cor-
rect interpretation of the law, we view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the state. Hedgpeth, 

.
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the evidence at
trial was sufficient to go to the jury on the issue of whether J
was capable of consent, and that the Court of Appeals erred
in holding otherwise. Thus, we, affirm in part and reverse
in part the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judg-
ment of the trial court.12
         In its own opinion, the Court of Appeals explained
its conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to go to the
jury on the issue of consent as follows. First, after recount-
ing many of the details of J’s testimony and acknowledg-
ing that J may well have misunderstood that the conduct
defendant referred to as “foreplay” was in fact sex, the court
held that “the evidence does not support the finding that
J did not understand that the activity initiated by defen-
dant was sexual in nature.” Wallace, 

.
The court followed that statement with: “[H]ere, as in Reed,
there is no evidence that J’s mental disability prevented her
from understanding the sexual nature of the conduct that
defendant initiated.” 

. Finally, the court concluded:
“Nor would the evidence support a finding that, because of
her mental disability, J lacked the ability to exercise judg-
ment to consent to sexual conduct.” 

 The Court of Appeals
appears to have drawn that conclusion from its earlier con-
clusion that J necessarily understood that the charged con-
duct was sexual in nature, but it did not explain how one
conclusion compelled the other or otherwise explain why the
evidence fell short in the latter regard.
         We view the evidence differently. Given J’s profound
confusion about what defendant was doing to her and why,
her testimony that the things that he had her do (or that he
     12
        As previously noted, our decision on this case does not affect the Court of
Appeals’ decision or the trial court’s judgment as to Count 1, ___ Or at ___ n 2
(slip op at 3 n 2), and we summarily reverse defendant’s conviction on Count 5
because it was the result of a nonunanimous jury verdict, ___ Or at ___ n 2 (slip
op at 3 n 3).
150                                            State v. Wallace

did to her) were disgusting and painful, and the associations
she made between sex, on the one hand, and love, marriage,
and childbearing (none of which she understood to apply
here), on the other, we are less confident than the Court
of Appeals regarding J’s understanding that the charged
conduct was “sexual in nature.” Even assuming, however,
that no rational juror could conclude that she lacked that
understanding, we disagree with the Court of Appeals’ con-
clusion that “the evidence [could not] support a finding that,
because of her mental disability, J lacked the ability to exer-
cise judgment to consent to sexual conduct.” 

         We therefore conclude that the Court of Appeals
erred. To illustrate why, we first revisit the facts of Reed. In
Reed, we considered the alleged victim’s testimony, ultimately
concluding that it indicated that she was capable of consent-
ing, specifically, to understand that having sexual relations
with the defendant was wrong and that what the defendant
was attempting was “not something that she wanted to do.”
339 Or at 245. The alleged victim in Reed testified that:
  •   She told the defendant that she did not want to be
      touched when he unbuckled her belt and put his hands
      down her pants;
  •   She told defendant “Get your hands out of there. I don’t
      want” when he unbuttoned her blouse and touched her
      breast;
  •   She pushed defendant back and told him that she
      wanted him to leave when he started getting “fresh”
      with her; and
  •   She was “not the type of girl to do that” when describing
      how defendant pulled down her pants and told her that
      they were in his house and that he could do what he
      wanted.
Id. Those statements—comprising the victim’s clear descrip-
tions of the incidents and characterizations of the defen-
dant’s actions as getting “fresh” with her—gave some indi-
cation that she understood the sexual nature of the conduct
that the defendant had initiated. And her statement that
she was “not the type of girl to do that” indicated that she
understood that there were potential personal and social
consequences of engaging in sexual conduct.
Cite as 

 (2024)                                   151

          Here, in contrast, the evidence more clearly sug-
gests that, even if J understood that the conduct that defen-
dant had initiated was sexual in nature, she was not capa-
ble of appraising that conduct—of exercising judgment with
regard to engaging in it. J said in her forensic interview
that, when defendant had her undress so that he could take
pictures of her, it seemed “strange that he would want to
take pictures of me nude” and that she did not know why he
had her do that. She repeatedly described the incidents as
“scary” and that they “did not felt [sic] right” and “did not
felt [sic] normal at all.” Those statements reflect an indi-
vidual who, if she understood that the conduct at issue was
sexual, not only failed to make a conscious decision whether
to go along—that is, exercise judgment with regard to that
conduct—but who also, due to an intellectual disability, was
incapable of doing so. Or so a jury could rationally find.
         This court’s opinion in Reed again helps illustrate
that point. In that case, after concluding that the victim’s
testimony had not provided any affirmative support for the
state’s case, the court considered the testimony of the state’s
expert to determine whether it provided “affirmative evi-
dence that, at the time of the alleged crimes, the victim had
a mental defect and that that mental defect had rendered
her incapable of consent.” 339 Or at 245. We explained that
the state’s expert had provided a “general summary” of the
victim’s social functioning ability, testifying that the victim:
  •   has an IQ in the “mild to moderate mental retardation
      range”;
  •   is a “very dependent person” who lives at home;
  •   depends on her mother for guidance and support;
  •   “couldn’t operate” in sheltered workplace settings like
      Goodwill and the Salvation Army; and
  •   needs another adult to “direct her and care for her to
      assure safety in all domains, particular with regard to
      social functioning.”
Id. at 246-47. The expert also testified generally about indi-
viduals functioning at a similar intellectual level, stating
that they are “easily victimized,” typically have a payee
for their disability benefits, and need ongoing intensive
152                                           State v. Wallace

supervision to “make sure that they take adequate care of
themselves and * * * stay out of harm’s way.” Id. at 247.
         As we noted in Reed, the expert in that case was never
asked directly whether the victim’s mental disability rendered
her incapable of consenting to sexual contact. Id. Instead, the
expert offered generalized testimony about the victim’s capac-
ity to function in other social situations, and even more gen-
eralized testimony about the social functioning capacity of
similar individuals. Id. The state did not sufficiently connect
that evidence of the victim’s impaired social functioning to her
alleged inability to appraise the nature of the conduct initi-
ated by the defendant. Id. The state conceded as much at oral
argument, acknowledging that it had not offered direct evi-
dence of how the victim’s intellectual disability had affected
her ability to appraise the nature of her conduct. Id. We there-
fore concluded that, on its own, the expert’s generalized testi-
mony could not establish that the victim had been incapable
of consenting to the charged sexual conduct in that case. Id.
         Here, on the other hand, the state linked J’s arguable
inability to exercise judgment about defendant’s sexual con-
duct—as opposed to merely recognizing it as sexual—to the
manner in which she functioned in other social situations,
which undisputedly was due to her intellectual disability. For
example, J’s caseworker described her as a “concrete thinker”
who thinks about concepts in “very black and white” terms,
has difficulty with “abstract thought,” and tends to “fixate”
only on the tangible aspects of communications. Relatedly,
the challenges J experienced while testifying at trial reflected
similar difficulties processing her thoughts. Together with her
accounts of how she absorbed and responded to defendant’s
conduct, that evidence could support the inference that, at
the time of defendant’s charged conduct, J’s intellectual dis-
ability rendered her incapable of appraising the nature of her
conduct. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying
defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on that basis.
                    III.   CONCLUSION
        We conclude that a rational trier of fact could have
found that the victim’s mental disability rendered her
incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct, and we
Cite as 

 (2024)                               153

therefore affirm the denial of defendant’s motion for judg-
ment of acquittal. But because defendant’s conviction on
Count 5 was nonunanimous, we reverse that conviction and
remand to the trial court for a new trial on that count.
         The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed in
part and affirmed in part. The judgment of the circuit court
is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is
remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.