State v. George

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 06-18-2014
  • Case #: A151164
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: DeVore, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Edmonds, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 811.540, the term “flee” applies to any instance where an individual knowingly avoids compliance with the requests of a pursuing officer.

Defendant was convicted of fleeing, or attempting to elude, a police officer. Defendant argued that “traveling 250 yards to get to his vehicle into his own parking spot at his house” was not an attempt to elude a police officer, and moved for a judgment of acquittal. The trial court denied defendant’s motion, reasoning that he consciously decided not to stop while an officer was signaling him to stop. On appeal, defendant argued there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because the state failed to prove he drove evasively. The state argued the statute does not require driving to be evasive as a necessary element. The Court held the plain meaning of “flee” does not require evidence of evasive driving. The offense is complete when, given a signal to stop, and individual knowingly continues and avoids compliance with a pursuing officer. Affirmed.

Advanced Search