State v. Spieler, 460 P.3d 535

Officers Castilleja and Gaston went to arrest Spieler on a felony warrant; Spieler went to his car, locked the doors, and the officers ordered him out and broke a rear window to unlock a front door.
Spieler put the car in reverse to leave the parking space, forcing officers to move; after exiting, the officers positioned themselves roughly a car-length to 20 feet in front of Spieler’s car, blocking the exit.
Spieler made eye contact, looked "through" one officer, then quickly accelerated the car directly toward the two officers; both officers jumped out of the way. The car missed one officer by <3 feet and the other by 5–10 feet.
Spieler did not swerve to strike the officers and continued to accelerate out of the lot to flee; he was arrested later after police pursuit.
Indicted counts included two counts of attempted second-degree assault and two counts of attempted assault of a public safety officer (plus menacing, reckless endangerment, eluding, interference, reckless driving, and driving while suspended).
Bench trial: parties agreed the sole disputed issue for the attempted-assault counts was Spieler’s intent (did he intend to injure the officers or only to escape?). The trial court convicted on attempted-assault counts, stating that driving directly at people established intent to injure; Spieler appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence and that the court conflated recklessness with intent.

Issue	State's Argument	Spieler's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Spieler personally intended to injure the officers when he accelerated toward them (Counts 1–4)	The circumstantial evidence (eye contact, purposeful acceleration directly at officers, closeness of near-misses, use of the car as a dangerous weapon, continued acceleration to flee) allowed a reasonable factfinder to infer intent to injure.	Spieler argued he only intended to escape and, at most, acted recklessly; the state failed to prove specific intent to cause physical injury.	Affirmed: reasonable factfinder could infer intent to injure; sufficiency challenge rejected.
Whether the trial court legally erred by conflating recklessness with intent in its speaking verdict (i.e., treating acceleration at someone as necessarily intent to injure)	The trial court properly considered competing inferences and found intent; its remarks, read in context, reflect a factual finding of intent, not a categorical legal rule equating acceleration with intent.	Spieler contended the court’s statements show it treated recklessness (accepting the risk) as equivalent to intent, which would be legal error because attempt requires intent.	Affirmed: no legal error. The Court of Appeals read the speaking verdict in context and concluded the trial court understood the distinction and found intent in this case.

State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460 (permissible to draw multiple reasonable inferences from established facts)
State v. Jessen, 162 Or App 662 (definition of "substantial step" for attempt: advances the criminal purpose and verifies its existence)
State v. Ramirez, 113 Or App 224 (accelerating a vehicle toward an officer supports inference of intent for attempted assault)
State v. Tapp, 110 Or App 1 (attempt requires intent; reckless conduct alone is insufficient for attempt)
State v. Rasberry, 286 Or App 685 (speaking verdicts and statements must be read in context)
State v. Reed, 299 Or App 675 (court’s remarks considered in context of whole record)
Kincek v. Hall, 217 Or App 227 (avoid selective reading of a court’s oral comments)
Bohnenkamp v. State of Oregon, 293 Or App 551 (consider speaking verdict in context of record)