Legal Opinion

State v. Ruggles

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 20, 2010No. MI080569; A140393PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, J.

The question in this case is whether, in a prosecution for refusing “to obey a lawful order” by a police officer, ORS 162.247(l)(b), the state must prove that defendant knew that the order he refused to obey was lawful. The trial court ruled that such proof was not necessary. We agree.

The relevant facts are few and undisputed. A McMinnville police officer saw defendant, whom the officer apparently recognized, and decided to “run a status check” on him. The check revealed an outstanding warrant for defendant’s arrest. When the officer ordered defendant to stop, defendant ran away, but the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  2. State v. RodgersOregon Supreme Court · 2010
  3. State v. Illig-RennOregon Supreme Court · 2004
  4. State v. MillerOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  5. State v. IrvingOregon Supreme Court · 1974

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State v. ProphetCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2022
  2. State v. HoldorfCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  3. State v. Arlyn v. OrrIdaho Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. State v. HernandezCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  5. State v. EnyeartCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API