State v. Carpenter

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 09-13-2017
  • Case #: A159994
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Devore, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Garrett, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A person can conceal another “through an act or omission with the intent to induce law enforcement to believe that the fugitive is not present.” State v. Turley, 202 Or App 49-50, 120 P3d 1229 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 157 (2006).

Defendant appealed a conviction for hindering prosecution and possession of a controlled substance. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial for his motion for acquittal. Defendant argued that he did not “conceal” a person with a felony warrant, Haussler, within the meaning of ORS 162.325(1)(a) because there was no evidence to show he knew where Haussler was hiding and that his lies to the officers did not further hide Haussler from the police. The State argued that Defendant’s acts constituted concealment because he lied about knowing Haussler, that he was recently with him, and that Haussler recently ran from the garage. A person can conceal another “through an act or omission with the intent to induce law enforcement to believe that the fugitive is not present.” State v. Turley, 202 Or App 49-50, 120 P3d 1229 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 157 (2006). The Court of Appeals held that a reasonable jury could find that the defendant’s act of lying to the police about Mr. Haussler’s whereabouts is concealment. Affirmed. 

Advanced Search