State v. Patnesky, 265 Or. App. 356

Defendant was convicted of interfering with a peace officer under ORS 162.247 and resisting arrest under ORS 162.315, among other crimes.
At trial, defendant challenged the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the interference charge, arguing he engaged in passive resistance.
Responding to a hit-and-run dispatch, Officer Schilder approached defendant at his residence; defendant did not acknowledge commands and attempted to adjust a Jeep door/top.
Schilder ordered him to stop; defendant continued to manipulate the Jeep and spoke aggressively, prompting Schilder to deploy a Taser after adding officers to the scene.
Defendant backed away, resisted officers as they moved him to the ground, and was eventually cuffed after a struggle.
The trial court denied the acquittal motion, noting evidence suggesting yanking of arms, which relates to resisting arrest rather than passive resistance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Meaning of passive resistance under ORS 162.247(3)(b)	State argues passive resistance is any noncooperation tied to protest, not violent acts.	Ortega contends passive resistance includes nonviolent, noncooperative conduct in civil disobedience.	Narrow interpretation adopted; passive resistance involves acts tied to protest, not any noncompliant act.

State v. Paragon, 195 Or App 265 (2004) (standard for acquittal review: rational trier could find elements proven beyond reasonable doubt; if so, denial proper)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009) (interprets text, context, and legislative history of ORS 162.247 to determine passive resistance)
State v. Illig-Renn, 341 Or 228 (2006) (recognizes passive-resistance fringes and potential jury instruction issues)
City of Eugene v. Kruk, 128 Or App 415 (1994) (passive resistance exception context prior to ORS 162.247 amendment)
State v. Swanson, 34 Or App 59 (1978) (passive resistance historically not a standalone crime; informs legislative intent)