State v. Olive

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 10-23-2013
  • Case #: A146922
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; and Brewer, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 162.315, it must be shown that an individual intended to resist arrest in order to satisfy the elements of the offense. Additionally, in order to form the required intent the person must know they are being arrested.

Defendant appealed conviction of resisting arrest and interfering with a peace officer. Defendant was in an altercation with several police officers and was charged with resisting arrest. At trial, Defendant argued that knowledge of the arrest is an essential element of resisting arrest, contrary to the Court of Appeals prior holding in State v. Toelaer. The trial court found that the State had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant knew he was being arrested, however, the court found Defendant guilty of resisting arrest based on Toelaer. Defendant appealed. The Court overruled Toelaer, and held the intention to resist arrest is the necessary culpable mental state in resisting arrests. Furthermore, the Court held that a culpable mental state is required for all elements that relate to the substance of forbidden conduct, unless the legislature expressly provides otherwise. Conviction of resisting arrest reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Advanced Search