State v. Davis

360 Or. 201 (2016) · Supreme Court of Oregon · August 11, 2016 · No. SC S063216; CA A154382; CC 131084

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court considered whether a defendant committed third-degree escape by running from police officers who identified themselves and repeatedly yelled, “Stop, police!” The court held that third-degree escape requires lawful constructive restraint imposed during or pursuant to an arrest, and that merely ordering a person to stop does not necessarily establish that condition. Because the state presented no evidence that the officer intended to arrest the defendant, the court reversed the Court of Appeals and the circuit court judgment and remanded.

Court
Supreme Court of Oregon
Writing for the Court
Landau, J.; Balmer, Chief Justice; Kistler, J.; Walters, J.; Baldwin, J.; Brewer, J.; Nakamoto, J.
Jurisdiction
Oregon
Decision date
August 11, 2016
Docket number
SC S063216; CA A154382; CC 131084
Procedural posture
Defendant sought review of a Court of Appeals decision affirming his conviction for third-degree escape. The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the denial of defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal.
Standard of review
The court viewed the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether a reasonable factfinder could find every element of third-degree escape beyond a reasonable doubt. The statutory interpretation issue was reviewed through examination of statutory text in context, legislative history, and other interpretive aids.
Precedential value
Published Oregon Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Robert Gordon Davis v. State of Oregon
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

statutory interpretationlegislative historycriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedurestatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. What constitutes custody for purposes of Oregon's third-degree escape statute, ORS 162.145(1), when police pursue and command a person to stop?
  2. Whether the state presented sufficient evidence that defendant was in custody pursuant to an arrest when he ran from the officers.

Holdings

  1. For purposes of ORS 162.145(1), a person is in custody when a police officer lawfully asserts authority to control the person's freedom during the course of an arrest or pursuant to the officer's authority to make such an arrest. Third-degree escape does not require that the person first be taken into physical custody.
  2. The state failed to prove that defendant was in custody before he ran because it presented no evidence that the officer's command to stop was made in the course of making an arrest or pursuant to the officer's authority to arrest defendant.

Key quotations

We conclude that police merely shouting for another person to stop does not place that person in custody for the purposes of establishing third-degree escape. (360 Or. at 203)
third-degree escape occurs when a person runs away from a police officer who has lawfully asserted authority to control a person’s freedom in the course of carrying out an arrest, that is, in the course of taking a person into custody to answer for a crime. (360 Or. at 207)
Given a complete absence of evidence that the officer commanded defendant to stop in the course of making an arrest or pursuant to the officer’s authority to arrest him, the state failed to establish all the required elements of the offense of third-degree escape. (360 Or. at 210)

Factual background

Police officers were dispatched after defendant threatened and assaulted two people outside a store. A uniformed officer identified himself as a police officer, defendant ran, and the officer chased him while repeatedly shouting, "Stop, police!" A second officer pursued defendant in a patrol car with its emergency lights and siren activated, and officers eventually apprehended him. The state presented no evidence that the officer's command to stop was made as part of an effort to arrest defendant or pursuant to authority to arrest him.

Procedural history

The Clatsop County Circuit Court denied defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal and entered a conviction for third-degree escape. The Court of Appeals affirmed without a written opinion. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the circuit court judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Remand instructions

The judgment of the circuit court was reversed, and the case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…