State v. West

“ORS 166.025 provides that proof of one of the acts specified in ORS 166.025(1)(a) to (f) coupled with proof of one of the alternative mental states specified in ORS 166.025(1) will establish the crime of second-degree disorderly conduct.”

Defendant appealed a conviction for two counts of second-degree disorderly conduct for obstructing traffic. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his demurrer and jury instruction, both of which said his conviction required a finding that he “intentionally” obstructed traffic. On appeal, Defendant argued that, despite the two mental states (“intent to cause,” recklessly) listed in ORS 166.025(1) being separated by “or,” Oregon caselaw has required a minimal showing of intentionality to uphold a conviction. In response, the State argued the statute’s text required that the State only needed to show Defendant had committed one of the enumerated acts with either an “intent to cause” or “recklessly,” but not both. “ORS 166.025 provides that proof of one of the acts specified in ORS 166.025(1)(a) to (f) coupled with proof of one of the alternative mental states specified in ORS 166.025(1) will establish the crime of second-degree disorderly conduct.” The Court held that because the statute only required evidence of one of the specified mental states, the jury’s finding that Defendant “knowingly” obstructed traffic was sufficient for his conviction. Affirmed for disorderly conduct, reversed for interfering with a police officer.