State v. Ochoa-Perez

ORS 162.315, resisting arrest, does not require that a defendant intentionally create a substantial risk of harm.

After being interviewed on a domestic disturbance call, Defendant attempted to re-enter the house and acted in opposition to direct orders. Defendant was charged with resisting arrest and interfering with a peace officer. Defendant appealed conviction for resisting arrest. Defendant assigned error to the court’s rejection of “special jury instructions” defining an intention to create a “substantial risk of harm” as necessary for a conviction of resisting arrest. Defendant argued the mental state required for resisting arrest should, at minimum, be criminal negligence. Pursuant to this Court’s decision in State v. Prophet, 318 Or. App. 330 (2022), ORS 162.315 does not require that a defendant intentionally create a substantial risk of harm The Court found that even if the special jury instructions had been given, the jury would have reached the same verdict. The Court found the reasoning in Prophet controlled here and the error, if any, was harmless. Affirmed.