In re K.-M. D.C., 2025 Ore. App. LEXIS 1427 (Or. Ct. App. 2025)

The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed a juvenile court’s adjudication of reckless burning, holding that a finding of recklessness requires evidence around a young person’s subjective awareness of risk. This case involved a 13-year-old youth who lit a fire on a grassy hill which spread and ended up damaging several homes. At issue was whether there was sufficient evidence that the youth acted recklessly in damaging property. The Court of Appeals stated, “A recklessness inquiry must consider a person’s subjective awareness. . . . Here the juvenile court summarily concluded that playing with a lighter in a dry field is ‘certainly’ something that a 13-year-old child would recognize as risky and ‘is just simply reckless.’ But the question in this case was not whether playing with a lighter in a dry field was generally ‘risky.’ Instead, the juvenile court was required to determine whether the record supported a determination that the youth was specifically aware of the risk of property damage as alleged in the state’s petition.” This decision lays the groundwork for a reasonable child standard on recklessness, noting the importance of considering a young person’s subjective awareness of risk to sustain the requisite mens rea required in a recklessness finding.