State v. McColly, 435 P.3d 715

Defendant (McColly) voluntarily appeared for arraignment on misdemeanor charges; court ordered a same-day "book-and-release" (fingerprinting/photographing) and signed a release agreement requiring future personal appearances.
Defendant missed a subsequent trial call; court revoked release, issued bench warrant, and arrested her; original misdemeanors were dismissed and the State charged second-degree failure to appear under ORS 162.195(1)(a).
At trial the State introduced the arraignment order, the release agreement, and testimony about deputies administering the book-and-release process; the court denied a judgment-of-acquittal motion and a jury convicted.
The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Oregon Supreme Court granted review to decide the statutory meaning of "released from custody" (ORS 162.195(1)(a)) and the related definition of "custody" (ORS 162.135(4)).
Central legal question: whether the State proved the required custody element—i.e., that a peace officer had imposed actual or constructive restraint pursuant to an arrest or court order, and that the court had then released the defendant from that custody under a release agreement and appearance condition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether "released from custody" under ORS 162.195(1)(a) can be satisfied by a court arraignment order that directs a later book-and-release administered by deputies	The arraignment order plus the court-directed book-and-release (administered by deputies) amounted to constructive restraint by peace officers, so defendant was released from custody before failing to appear	The State failed to show any restraint imposed by a peace officer prior to the failure to appear; defendant was not "released from custody" as statutorily defined	Reversed conviction: statute requires proof that a peace officer imposed actual/constructive restraint pursuant to arrest or court order, and then the court released the defendant from that custody under a release agreement and appearance condition; here restraint had not occurred before release.

State v. Davis, 360 Or. 201, 377 P.3d 583 (construing "constructive restraint" and requiring officer's assertion of control to establish custody)
State v. Makin, 360 Or. 238, 381 P.3d 799 (standard for viewing facts in light most favorable to the State on sufficiency review)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160, 206 P.3d 1042 (statutory construction methodology)
State v. Rader, 348 Or. 81, 228 P.3d 552 (approach to judgment-of-acquittal when construction question frames an element)