State v. Enyeart

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 11-13-2014
  • Case #: A147684
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J. for the Court; Egan, J.; & De Muniz, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Defendant could not be convicted of interfering with a peace office as a lesser-included offense of eluding a police officer because the intentional mental state of ORS 162.247(1)(b) is not subsumed in the knowing mental state of ORS 811.540(1)(b)(A) and the charging instrument did not expressly allege that Defendant had intentionally refused to obey a lawful order.

Defendant appealed from a conviction for interfering with a peace officer. After observing Defendant and another vehicle driving suspiciously, an officer ordered both drivers to shut off their engines while stopped at a red light. Defendant did not shut off her engine and when the light turned green she drove away. The officer remained at the light to investigate the other driver and did not pursue Defendant. Defendant was charged with “unlawfully and knowingly” attempting to elude a police officer. After denying Defendant’s motion for acquittal, the court convicted Defendant of interfering with a peace officer, and a lesser-included offense. On appeal, Defendant argued that interfering with a police officer was not a lesser-included offense because it required proof that Defendant had acted intentionally, while eluding a police officer under requires only a knowing culpable state. The Court held that to prove Defendant had violated ORS 162.247(1)(b), the State was required to prove that Defendant had acted intentionally, and that the crime of interfering with a police officer was not a lesser-included offense of eluding a police officer because the intentional mental state is not subsumed in the knowing mental state and the charging instrument did not expressly allege that Defendant had intentionally refused to obey a lawful order. Reversed.

Advanced Search