State v. Koontz

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Supreme Court
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 06-29-2016
  • Case #: A154677
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Hadlock, C.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under State v. Garcia, when the State charges a defendant for interfering with a peace officer based on an express theory that defendant resisted the arrest of another officer, that charge is improper, and may be challenged through a motion for judgment of acquittal.

Defendant appealed her conviction for interfering with a peace officer (IPO). On appeal, Defendant appealed the trial court's denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing that she could not properly be charged with IPO under ORS 162.247(3)(a), because “a person cannot be convicted of IPO based on conduct that would constitute resisting another person’s arrest.” The Court held that under State v. Garcia, 278 Or App 639, 650 (2016), when the state expressly elects at trial to base a charge for IPO on a theory that defendant resisted the arrest of another person, the charge for IPO is improper, and may be challenged through a MJOA. Because the State conceded that defendant’s IPO charge was based on a theory that Defendant resisted the arrest of another person, the Court held that defendant was entitled to acquittal on the IPO charge, and that the trial court erred in dismissing her MJOA. Conviction for IPO reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Advanced Search