312 P.3d 588
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant was convicted of resisting arrest under ORS 162.315 and interfering with a peace officer under ORS 162.247 after a police altercation.
- During the incident, at least one officer testified that he told defendant he was under arrest.
- The trial court found that defendant did not know he was under arrest but held that knowledge was not an element of resisting arrest.
- The court overruled the prior Toelaer approach, concluding knowledge of the arrest was not required for ORS 162.315.
- The State argued that a defendant could be guilty of resisting arrest without knowledge of the arrest; defense argued knowledge was required.
- On appeal, the court reversed the resisting arrest conviction and affirmed the remaining conviction, ultimately holding that knowledge of the arrest is an element.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is knowledge of the arrest an element of resisting arrest under ORS 162.315(1)? | State contends knowledge not required; Toelaer controls. | Duncan argues knowledge is required; Toelaer is correct. | Knowledge required; Toelaer overruled. |
| What is the proper remedy if knowledge is required but not found by the trial court? | State argues remand for new trial possible if knowledge could be found. | Duncan argues acquittal due to lack of knowledge; remand unnecessary. | Acquittal of resisting arrest; remainder affirmed. |
| Did ORS 162.315 specify culpable mental state for in making an arrest that requires knowledge? | State relies on statutory text and history supporting knowledge. | Duncan contends the statute requires knowledge; Toelaer was wrong. | Statute requires knowledge; intentionally applies to resisting in making an arrest. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Toelaer, 70 Or. App. 164 (1984) (held no culpable mental state required for knowledge of arrest (overruled))
- State v. Rainoldi, 351 Or. 486 (2011) (reversed Rainoldi I analysis; focused on ORS 161.095(2) and culpable states)
- Rainoldi I, 236 Or. App. 129 (2010) (analyzed ORS 161.095(2) and culpable states; pre‑Rainoldi II)
- State v. Blanton, 284 Or. 591 (1978) (culpable mental state required for elements relating to harm)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (2009) (statutory interpretation of culpable states under Oregon Code)
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606 (1993) (statutory interpretation framework for Oregon agencies)
- State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66 (1993) (standard for reviewing bench trial decisions on legal error)
- Aguilar v. Washington County, 201 Or. App. 640 (2005) (reaffirms stare decisis considerations and framework)
- Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or. 72 (1997) (decision about reconsidering prior interpretations when necessary)