State v. Garcia

ORS 162.247 prohibits the State from charging a defendant with interfering with a peace officer if the State has also charged the defendant with resisting arrest based on the same conduct.

Defendant appealed the trial court’s judgment of conviction for interfering with a peace officer (IPO). Defendant assigned error to the submittal of the IPO count to the jury because the IPO statute excludes conduct that constitutes resisting arrest and Defendant was charged with both crimes based on the same conduct. At trial, testimony made it clear that the IPO counts were based on the same conduct as the resisting arrest count. On appeal, Defendant argued that the IPO statute prohibits the State from charging both counts for IPO and resisting arrest if based on the same conduct. The State responded that the statute “does not preclude concurrent charges for both resisting arrest and IPO.” The Court interpreted the IPO statute based on the text and legislative history and concluded that “the legislature intended to prohibit the [S]tate from charging a defendant with both resisting arrest and IPO based on the same conduct.” The trial court erred by submitting the IPO counts to the jury when the State had engaged in the exact type of double charging the legislature had intended to prevent with the IPO statute. Reversed.