State v. Bledsoe

The crime of interference with a peace officer under ORS 162.247(1)(b) states that a person commits the crime by knowingly “refus[ing] to obey a lawful order” given by an officer. The exception under ORS 162.247(3)(b) states that passive resistance “does not apply.”

Defendant appealed a conviction of interference with a peace officer. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal. On appeal, Defendant argued that when she continued walking as a uniformed officer gave her lawful orders to stop, that act constituted “passive resistance” under ORS 162.247(3)(b). In response, the State argued that because walking is “active,” that conduct cannot be exempt from liability under the statute. The crime of interference with a peace officer under ORS 162.247(1)(b) states that a person commits the crime by knowingly “refus[ing] to obey a lawful order” given by an officer. The exception under ORS 162.247(3)(b) states that passive resistance “does not apply.” The Court held that walking is an active verb, thus cannot constitute passive conduct for the purposes of the statute. Relying on public policy, the Court also reasoned that including walking away as part of the passive resistance exception would swallow the rule. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction because the exception is concerned with the nature of the resistance, either passive or active, not the prolongation or termination of conduct. Affirmed.