- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
- Date Filed: 06-07-2017
- Case #: A156387
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Hadlock, C.J..
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed a conviction of two counts of failure to perform the duties of a driver toward injured persons, ORS 811.705. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of her motion for acquittal. On appeal, Defendant argued that the state failed to prove Defendant's guilt because it did not provide sufficient evidence to establish Defendant’s knowledge of the accident when she was at the scene of the accident. In response, the state argued that the trial court ruled correctly because regardless if a drier is unaware of the accident, once the driver becomes aware, she must “return and perform the other duties listed in ORS 811.705(1).” despite the statute not explicitly requiring a person to return. RS 811.705(1)(a), in part, states that "[a] person commits the offense of failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons if the person is the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident that results in injury or death to any person and does not do all of the following: immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident or as close thereto as possible." The Court held (through a statutory construction analysis) that because ORS 811.705 requires a driver to know of an accident causing injury, it does not imply an assumption that a driver must return to the scene after learning of the accident at a later time. Reversed.ORS 811.705 requires a driver to know of an accident causing injury, it does not imply an assumption that a driver must return to the scene after learning of the accident at a later time.