243 P.3d 476
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- Defendant was convicted of second-degree escape under ORS 162.155(1).
- Officer Dorn, a K-9 unit member, stopped defendant after observing him sprinting away from a reported crime scene.
- Dorn blockaded defendant, ordered him to the ground, and defendant initially complied but later sprang to his feet.
- Defendant fought Dorn briefly, then Ranger, a police dog, subdued him.
- Issue on appeal was whether there was sufficient evidence that defendant was in custody in the statutory sense of the term.
- Court affirms the conviction, analyzing whether constructive restraint and purpose to arrest were shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was defendant in custody via constructive restraint for arrest purposes? | State contends constructive restraint existed to satisfy custody. | Alexander argues no custody or insufficient construct. restraint. | Yes; sufficient evidence supported constructive restraint for arrest purpose. |
| Are express arrest words required to establish constructive restraint? | State argues words of arrest not strictly required. | Alexander argues explicit arrest language is necessary. | Not required; totality of circumstances suffices to show constructive restraint. |
| Did defendant need actual knowledge that Dorn intended to charge him? | State need not prove defendant knew the charging purpose. | Alexander contends knowledge of charging purpose is required. | Knowledge of charging purpose not required for construct. restraint under the circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Stout, 107 Or.App. 233 (1991) (constructive restraint can be sufficient to arrest when officer states restraint for purposes of apprehending)
- State v. Swanson, 34 Or.App. 59 (1978) (words of arrest must manifest intent to apprehend for custody)
- State v. Gleason, 94 Or.App. 208 (1988) (words of arrest may be needed to constitute constructive restraint)
- State v. Pierce, 226 Or.App. 224 (2009) (stop is not an arrest; arrest requires intent to charge offense)
- State v. Lane, 341 Or. 433 (2006) (court-ordered custody can create custody for escape if declared in presence of officer)
- State v. Thomas, 229 Or.App. 453 (2009) (express statement of arrest, by officer, not strictly necessary where totality shows constructive restraint)