State v. Oldfield

When determining whether a culpable mental state applies to an element within a statute, courts look at 1) the text of the statute, 2) the nature of the element at issue, 3) the legislative history of the statute, and 4) whether proof of the mental state would frustrate the purpose of the statute.

Defendant appealed his conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, ORS 811.540(1)(b)(A), and reckless driving, ORS 811.140. On appeal, Defendant claimed the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury to find the Defendant “knew that the vehicle pursuing him was an 'appropriately marked' police vehicle,” thereby assigning a culpable mental state of knowledge to whether the police vehicle in his pursuit was appropriately marked. The Oregon Court of Appeals noted that although the requisite mental state is generally applied to the following elements within a statute, the legislature did not intend to do so here. The Court determined, using the four factor test from State v. Rainoldi that looks at 1) the text of the statute, 2) the nature of the element at issue, 3) the legislative history of the statute, and 4) whether proof of the mental state would frustrate the purpose of the statute, the legislature clearly intended that “no culpable mental state should apply to the element of the police car being appropriately marked.” State v. Rainoldi, 351 Or 486, 491, 268 P3d 568 (2011). Trial court’s decision was affirmed.