The Oregon Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision Wednesday affirming the criminal conviction of Edwardo Luis Ribas for violating state sex offender registration requirements, resolving a case that has wound through Oregon's court system since 2019.
The case, *State v. Ribas*, centered on whether Ribas failed to report a change of residence within 10 days as required under Oregon Revised Statute 163A.040(1)(d). The conviction originated in Linn County Circuit Court under case number 19CR38145, with Judge Brendan J. Kane presiding over the trial court proceedings.
According to the Supreme Court's opinion, authored by Justice Bushong, the central legal issue was whether the trial court erred in denying Ribas's motion for judgment of acquittal on the failure-to-report charge. The court identified two key legal questions that required resolution to determine the case's outcome.
The first question addressed whether the state was bound by its chosen factual theory at trial, which alleged that Ribas had changed his residence after making his required annual report to the Albany police. The second question concerned what the state was required to prove regarding defendant's obligations under the sex offender registration statute.
The case attracted attention from criminal justice reform advocates, with The Clif Project and Oregon Voices filing an amicus brief through attorney Jon P. Stride of Tonkon Torp LLP in Portland. Sasha A. Petrova also contributed to the amicus brief, indicating broader interest in the case's implications for sex offender registration enforcement.
Ribas was represented by the Oregon Public Defense Commission, with Deputy Public Defender Peter G. Klym arguing the case before the Supreme Court. Chief Defender Ernest G. Lannet of the Criminal Appellate Section also contributed to the defense briefs. The state's position was argued by Assistant Attorney General Joanna L. Jenkins, with support from Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Interim Deputy Attorney General Benjamin Gutman.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on Sept. 19, 2025, before issuing its decision Wednesday. The court's review came after the Oregon Court of Appeals had previously ruled on the matter, issuing a decision reported at 333 Or App 789, 554 P3d 280 (2024).
Oregon's sex offender registration law, codified in ORS 163A.040, requires registered sex offenders to report changes of residence within specific timeframes. The statute is part of Oregon's comprehensive approach to monitoring individuals convicted of sex offenses, similar to registration systems in other states.
The failure-to-report charge represents one of several ways the state can prosecute violations of sex offender registration requirements. These cases often involve questions about what constitutes a "change of residence" and the timing requirements for reporting such changes to law enforcement.
The Supreme Court's decision to review the case "En Banc" indicates the significance Oregon's highest court placed on resolving the legal questions presented. En banc review involves the full court rather than a smaller panel of justices, typically reserved for cases involving important questions of law or conflicts between lower court decisions.
The case's journey through Oregon's three-tier court system reflects the complexity of issues surrounding sex offender registration enforcement. Trial courts must determine the facts of alleged violations, while appellate courts focus on whether the law was correctly applied to those facts.
Wednesday's decision provides clarity for future prosecutions under Oregon's sex offender registration statute. By affirming both the Court of Appeals decision and the original circuit court judgment, the Supreme Court has validated the legal reasoning applied at both lower court levels.
The involvement of advocacy groups through amicus briefing suggests the case's implications extend beyond Ribas's individual circumstances. Criminal justice reform organizations often participate in cases that could affect how registration laws are interpreted and enforced statewide.
For law enforcement agencies like the Albany police department mentioned in the case, the decision provides guidance on how registration requirements should be understood and applied. Police departments across Oregon frequently interact with registered sex offenders who must comply with reporting obligations.
The decision also has implications for defense attorneys representing clients charged with registration violations. Understanding what the state must prove and how factual theories chosen at trial affect the prosecution's burden can influence defense strategies in similar cases.
While the Supreme Court's opinion did not overturn the conviction, the case's progression through all levels of Oregon's court system demonstrates the careful scrutiny applied to criminal convictions, particularly those involving registration requirements that can significantly impact individuals' liberty interests.
The unanimous nature of the Supreme Court's decision suggests broad agreement among the justices about how Oregon's sex offender registration law should be interpreted in cases involving alleged residence reporting violations.