State v. Vaughn

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Vaughn

335 P.3d 1278, 265 Or. App. 336, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1203

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 4, 2014

Docket12C41376; A152891

StatusPublished

This text of 335 P.3d 1278 (State v. Vaughn) 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. Vaughn, 335 P.3d 1278, 265 Or. App. 336, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1203 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, ORS 811.540, and operating a motor vehicle without driving privileges, ORS 807.010. On appeal, he assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. Defendant argues that, in order to obtain a conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer under ORS 811.540, the state was required to prove that he drove evasively and, here, there was no evidence that he did so.

Defendant’s assignment of error is resolved by our recent decision in State v. George, 263 Or App 642, 330 P3d 1239 (2014). In that case, we considered the question defendant raises here — whether ORS 811.540 requires evidence of evasive driving — and answered that question in the negative. In particular, we concluded that ORS 811.540 “does not require evidence of evasive driving” and, instead, “[t]he offense is complete when, given a signal to stop, an individual knowingly continues and avoids compliance with a pursuing officer.” George, 263 Or App at 645-46. In light of George, we reject defendant’s contention in this case that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, ORS 811.540, and operating a motor vehicle without driving privileges, ORS 807.010. On appeal, he assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. Defendant argues that, in order to obtain a conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer under ORS 811.540, the state was required to prove that he drove evasively and, here, there was no evidence that he did so.

Defendant’s assignment of error is resolved by our recent decision in State v. George, 263 Or App 642, 330 P3d 1239 (2014). In that case, we considered the question defendant raises here — whether ORS 811.540 requires evidence of evasive driving — and answered that question in the negative. In particular, we concluded that ORS 811.540 “does not require evidence of evasive driving” and, instead, “[t]he offense is complete when, given a signal to stop, an individual knowingly continues and avoids compliance with a pursuing officer.” George, 263 Or App at 645-46. In light of George, we reject defendant’s contention in this case that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

335 P.3d 1278, 265 Or. App. 336, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-vaughn-orctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack