- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
- Date Filed: 08-09-2023
- Case #: No. A176685
- Judge(s)/Court Below: AOYAGI, P.J. for the Court; JOYCE, J.; JACQUOT, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant was convicted of two counts of interfering with public transportation. Count 1 involved activity on a TriMet bus, and Count 3 involved activity outside the bus preventing it from leaving. The two verdicts were merged for sentencing. Defendant assigns error, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict him on Count 1.
A person violates ORS 166.116(1)(c) if they “[w]hile in or on a public transit vehicle [...], engage [...] in disorderly conduct in the second degree as defined in ORS 166.025(1)(a).” The Court has held that the statute is violated only when the defendant engages in “physical force or physical conduct which is immediately likely to produce the use of such force[.]” State v. Cantwell, 66 Or App 848, rev den, 297 Or 124 (1984).
The Court found that the altercation on the bus was legally insufficient to violate ORS 166.116(1)(c) as interpreted by Cantwell. The Defendant should have been found guilty on Count 3 because he “[i]ntentionally or knowingly interfere[d] with the [...] use of public transportation services by [...] interfering with the movement of, or access to, public transit vehicles.” ORS 166.116(1)(b).
REVERSED on Count 1 and REMANDED for entry of conviction on Count 3.