State v. Devall

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Devall

371 P.3d 1294, 277 Or. App. 779, 2016 WL 1584015, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 444

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 20, 2016

Docket14CR1791; A158544

StatusPublished

This text of 371 P.3d 1294 (State v. Devall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Devall, 371 P.3d 1294, 277 Or. App. 779, 2016 WL 1584015, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 444 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of second-degree disorderly conduct, ORS 166.025(1)(a) (Count 1), and interfering with a peace officer, ORS 162.247(1)(b) (Count 2). On appeal, she assigns error to the denial of her motion for a judgment of acquittal as to Count 1; she does not challenge her conviction on Count 2. The state concedes that there was not legally sufficient evidence that defendant had engaged in “violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior” as required for conviction of second-degree disorderly conduct under ORS 166.025(1)(a). We agree.

In State v. Atwood, 195 Or App 490, 500, 98 P3d 751 (2004), we held that “violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior” under ORS 166.025(1)(a) cannot be shown by verbal threats alone; rather, the state must show that the defendant “with the requisite intent, used physical force or engaged in physical conduct likely to produce the use of such force by either [the defendant] or by an objectively reasonable third party responding to that conduct.” The evidence in this case is insufficient to meet that standard. Accordingly, we reverse defendant’s conviction of second-degree disorderly conduct on Count 1; otherwise, we affirm.

Conviction on Count 1 reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of second-degree disorderly conduct, ORS 166.025(1)(a) (Count 1), and interfering with a peace officer, ORS 162.247(1)(b) (Count 2). On appeal, she assigns error to the denial of her motion for a judgment of acquittal as to Count 1; she does not challenge her conviction on Count 2. The state concedes that there was not legally sufficient evidence that defendant had engaged in “violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior” as required for conviction of second-degree disorderly conduct under ORS 166.025(1)(a). We agree.

In State v. Atwood, 195 Or App 490, 500, 98 P3d 751 (2004), we held that “violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior” under ORS 166.025(1)(a) cannot be shown by verbal threats alone; rather, the state must show that the defendant “with the requisite intent, used physical force or engaged in physical conduct likely to produce the use of such force by either [the defendant] or by an objectively reasonable third party responding to that conduct.” The evidence in this case is insufficient to meet that standard. Accordingly, we reverse defendant’s conviction of second-degree disorderly conduct on Count 1; otherwise, we affirm.

Conviction on Count 1 reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

371 P.3d 1294, 277 Or. App. 779, 2016 WL 1584015, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-devall-orctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack