State v. Carpenter

“The legislature did not intend the term ‘conceals’ in ORS 162.325(1)(a) to include denying knowledge about a wanted person or his or her whereabouts. Rather, ‘conceals’ for hindering prosecution requires conduct by the defendant that hides the statutory object of concealment—a person who committed a crime punishable as a felony—from ordinary observation.” State v. Carpenter, 365 Or 488, 446 P3d 1273 (2019).

This case was on remand from the Supreme Court, which reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision in State v. Carpenter, 287 Or App 720, 404 P3d 1135 (2017) (Carpenter I), and remanded for reconsideration, State v. Carpenter, 365 Or 488, 446 P3d 1273 (2019) (Carpenter II). In Carpenter I, Defendant argued two assignments of error which the Court of Appeals rejected. First, that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal because the State presented insufficient evidence that he "concealed" a wanted person for purposes of the crime of hindering prosecution under ORS 162.325(1)(a). Second, Defendant argued that because he did not "conceal" the wanted person, the police lacked probable cause to arrest him for that crime and the lower court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence of unlawful possession of a controlled substance. In Carpenter II, the Supreme Court reversed Carpenter I's first assignment of error based on differing interpretations of the term "conceal," and it remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration of Defendant's second assignment of error. “The legislature did not intend the term ‘conceals’ in ORS 162.325(1)(a) to include denying knowledge about a wanted person or his or her whereabouts. Rather, ‘conceals’ for hindering prosecution requires conduct by the defendant that hides the statutory object of concealment—a person who committed a crime punishable as a felony—from ordinary observation.” State v. Carpenter, 365 Or 488, 446 P3d 1273 (2019). The Court held that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress because none of the facts known to police supported an objectively reasonable belief that Defendant's conduct concealed the wanted person from observation. Because the police did not have probable cause to arrest Defendant for hindering prosecution, the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. Therefore, the Court reversed Defendant's conviction for unlawful possession of a Schedule II controlled substance. Reversed and remanded.