Oregon Appellate Court--September 13, 2017

by: Msell@mpdlaw.com • September 26, 2017 • no comments

Big textCRIMES/CONTEMPT

Hindering Prosecution—MJOA—Sufficient evidence to prove defendant knowingly “concealed” a person.

Search and Seizure—Probable Cause—Officer had probable cause to believe that defendant had committed crime of hindering of prosecution

There was sufficient evidence for a fact finder to conclude that defendant had “concealed” a person wanted on a warrant based on defendant’s repeated denials that he knew the person or knew that anyone had fled. Here, a detective had gone to Haussler’s property to arrest Haussler on a warrant after receiving a tip that Haussler was there. The detective saw a pickup truck at the property and saw a person who he believed to be Haussler flee after he arrived. Defendant and a woman were also at the property. The detective told defendant that he had a warrant for Haussler’s arrest. Defendant repeatedly denied knowing Haussler and, when asked who had fled, did not acknowledge that anyone had run. Later, after Haussler was found nearby and arrested, defendant was arrested for hindering prosecution. Drugs were found on defendant at the jail.

Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence that defendant had “concealed” Haussler. The court disagrees, holding that a reasonable fact finder could find that defendant’s lies were intended to conceal Haussler’s physical presence by misleading the officer into believing that Haussler had not been recently present and was not likely present nearby. For the same reasons, the court concludes that the detective had probable cause to arrest defendant for hindering prosecution.

State v. Carpenter, 287 Or App 720 (2017) (DeVore, J.)