State v. Toland, 283 P.3d 930

Defendants pled conditional no contest to hindering prosecution under ORS 162.325; judgments of conviction entered.
Defendants sought reversal of the pretrial ruling that barred relying on federal confidentiality regulations as a complete defense.
42 CFR Part 2 confidentiality rules generally prohibit acknowledging a patient’s presence where the location is publicly identified as only treatment.
The 25th Street Bridgeway office provides only alcohol/drug treatment; evidence suggested the broader agency presented itself publicly with more services.
Trial court held that the facility was publicly identified in a way that limited disclosure, denying a complete defense; remand ordered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Part 2 can be a complete defense.	State: defense cannot negate hindering charge.	Toland/Fricano: compliance with Part 2 is a complete defense.	Yes; defendants may present Part 2 defense if applicable.
Whether the correct unit is the 25th Street office or the whole agency.	State: facility means the agency; public identification controls.	Toland/Fricano: facility is the specific 25th Street office.	Facility = the 25th Street office (not the entire agency).
Whether there was evidence to support the defense going to jury.	State: no evidence supports the defense as complete or mental-state related.	Toland/Fricano: there was evidence the office was publicly identified as more than treatment.	There was evidence; the defense could be presented to jury.

State v. Brown, 306 Or 599 (Or. 1988) (jury entitlement to defense when facts support it)
State v. Shelley, 110 Or App 225 (Or. App. 1991) (defendant entitled to present theory if evidence exists)
Cervantes, 232 Or App 567 (Or. App. 2009) (demurrer vs. defense evidence outside indictment issue)
State v. Clowes, 310 Or 686 (Or. 1990) (pretrial motion in limine and evidence ruling)
United States v. Johnston, 810 F.2d 841 (8th Cir. 1987) (federal confidentiality aims to shield patient identity)