State v. Anderson

Under ORS 162.315(2)(c), the term “resists” means “the use or threatened use of violence, physical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person and includes . . . behavior clearly intended to prevent being taken into custody by overcoming the actions of the arresting officer. The behavior does not have to result in actual physical injury to an officer.”

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for resisting arrest. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. On appeal, Defendant argued the State did not meet its burden in proving the two necessary elements of “resisting arrest.” Additionally, Defendant argued that he did not know he was under arrest and that the officers were the ones who started the physical altercation, thus creating the “substantial risk” that resulted in the injury, not the Defendant. In response, the State argued that a rational trier of fact could determine that there was sufficient evidence to show Defendant’s actions, in using physical force while being arrested, constituted as “resisting arrest.” Under ORS 162.315(2)(c), the term “resists” means “the use or threatened use of violence, physical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person and includes . . . behavior clearly intended to prevent being taken into custody by overcoming the actions of the arresting officer. The behavior does not have to result in actual physical injury to an officer.” The Oregon Court of Appeals concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction of “resisting arrest” and that Defendant’s argument about “not knowing” he was under arrest was not raised during the trial, so the Court did not need to address it.

Affirmed.