State v. McClure

The text, context, and legislative history of the resisting arrest statute requires that ORS 133.005(1) be interpreted to encompass arrest for a probation violation.

Defendant appealed his conviction of resisting arrest. Defendant was arrested for an outstanding warrant related to a parole violation. During the interaction with police that lead to the arrest, Defendant resisted officers’ attempts to physically restrain him. Defendant was charged with resisting arrest and at trial a jury found Defendant guilty. At trial Defendant filed a motion for acquittal based on the definitions of “arrest” in ORS 133.005, and “offense” in ORS 161.505, and cited State v. Pierce. Defendant argued that the statutory language does not include a parole violation as an “offense” for which he could be arrested and then resist arrest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. This Court held that the text, context, and legislative history of the resisting arrest statute requires that ORS 133.005(1) be interpreted to encompass arrest for a probation violation. Affirmed.