335 P.3d 1260
Or.2014Background
- defendant McClure was stopped in Portland in 2009 for a suspected parole violation while officers discovered an outstanding warrant.
- Officers restrained and attempted to take him to the ground; McClure resisted during the arrest process.
- He was charged with resisting arrest under ORS 162.315, with the arrest defined by ORS 133.005 and ORS 133.005(1).
- The parole violation arrest occurred during efforts to revoke parole, not for charging a new offense.
- The trial court denied a motion for acquittal; the Court of Appeals affirmed, adopting a broad interpretation of ORS 162.315.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that parole-violation arrest satisfies ORS 162.315’s “arrest” autrement, and that admission of prior resisting-arrest conviction was harmless error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parole-violation arrest qualifies as arrest under ORS 162.315 | McClure: arrest not for charging an offense so not arrest under ORS 133.005(1). | State: ORS 133.005(1) includes restraint for purposes beyond charging an offense; parole arrest fits. | Parole-violation arrest qualifies as arrest under ORS 162.315. |
| Whether ORS 133.005(1) must be read narrowly to require charging an offense | The qualifier limits to charging an offense; parole detention lacks that purpose. | The term’s breadth includes any restraint beyond a stop, consistent with statutory history. | Text, context, and history show the qualifying phrase broadens to include non-offense restraints. |
| Whether admission of prior resisting-arrest conviction was harmless error | Error was prejudicial to defendant's theory of intent. | Prior act probative of intent should be excluded; error was reversible. | Harmless error; evidence admissible but its impact on verdict was minimal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Groda, 285 Or 321 (1979) (arrest includes actual restraint and custody for charging an offense; informs ORS 133.005(1))
- State v. Heintz, 286 Or 239 (1979) (blood draw as search incident to arrest supports arrest includes restraint)
- State v. Mendacino, 288 Or 231 (1980) (mentions ORS 133.005 in context of arrest definitions)
- State v. Pierce, 226 Or App 224 (2009) (arrest definition tied to charging offense; cited for interpretive framework)
- Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., Inc. v. Watkins, 347 Or 687 (2010) (teaches consideration of prior interpretations of ORS 133.005)
- State v. Oliphant, 347 Or 175 (2009) (context on resisting arrest and use of force matters)