State v. Gaines, 040343619.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
Writing for the CourtRosenblum
Citation155 P.3d 61,211 Or. App. 356
PartiesSTATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Artissa Dehonda GAINES, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket NumberA124872.,040343619.
Decision Date14 March 2007
155 P.3d 61
211 Or. App. 356
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
Artissa Dehonda GAINES, Defendant-Appellant.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Argued and Submitted September 7, 2006.
Decided March 14, 2007.

Harry R. Carson argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Anna M. Joyce, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Julie A. Smith, Assistant Attorney General.

Before HASELTON, Presiding Judge, and ARMSTRONG and ROSENBLUM, Judges.


211 Or. App. 358

Defendant appeals her conviction for obstructing governmental or judicial administration, ORS 162.235. She argues that the evidence, which shows that she refused to obey a lawful order to move from one place to another, is insufficient to support her conviction. We affirm.

In January 2004, defendant was arrested on an unrelated felony charge. She was booked and lodged at the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office. On March 7, 2004, while defendant was still incarcerated on the felony charge, Corrections Sergeant Jacobs discovered during a review of prisoner booking photographs that defendant's file contained a profile photograph but no frontal photograph. He went to defendant's cell and told her to accompany him to the booking area to take a frontal photograph. She refused. Jacobs decided not to force the issue at that time.

155 P.3d 62

The next week, he again directed defendant to go to the booking area to be photographed. She again refused and asked to speak to her attorney. He informed her that she could speak to her attorney, but that he would resolve the issue of the missing photograph the next time her saw her. When Sergeant Jacobs approached her a week later, defendant told him that her attorney said that it was unlawful for the police to take her photograph unless he produced the relevant law in writing. Sergeant Jacobs informed her that she was incorrect and ordered her to accompany him to the booking area. Defendant refused a third time.

After defendant's third refusal, Jacobs checked her record and discovered that defendant had also refused to cooperate at her initial booking. According to that record, as a result of defendant's resistance, the booking process, which normally takes about three hours, took 17 hours. Defendant had turned her head to the side every time the booking officers had attempted to take a frontal photograph. The record also indicated that the officers had resorted to force in order to fingerprint defendant and to dress her in jail garments.

Jacobs concluded that any efforts he made to obtain a frontal photograph of defendant would likely be met with

211 Or. App. 359

similar resistance. He decided not to force another such confrontation with defendant and to have her charged with obstructing governmental or judicial administration in violation of ORS 162.235. The information alleged that, "on or about March 21, 2004," defendant "unlawfully and intentionally obstruct[ed], impair[ed] and hinder[ed] the administration of law by means of physical interference and obstacle."

Defendant was tried in a bench trial. Jacobs's testimony on behalf of the state established that defendant verbally refused to go to the booking area to be photographed but did not otherwise physically resist. At the close of the state's evidence, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that her refusal to accompany Jacobs from her housing unit to the booking area in the basement to have her picture taken did not constitute "physical * * * interference or obstacle" within the meaning of ORS 162.235. The trial court denied the motion and ultimately convicted defendant.

On appeal, defendant argues that there is insufficient evidence that she violated ORS 162.235. She contends that her three refusals to accompany Jacobs to the booking area in March did not obstruct the administration of law...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Gaines, (CC 040343619.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • April 30, 2009
    ...within the meaning of the statute. The Court of Appeals concluded that it was and affirmed defendant's conviction. State v. Gaines, 211 Or.App. 356, 361, 155 P.3d 61, modified and adh'd to as modified on recons, 213 Or.App. 211, 159 P.3d 1291 (2007). As we will explain, we hold that a perso......
  • State v. Gaines, 040343619.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • May 30, 2007
    ...and ARMSTRONG and ROSENBLUM, Judges. ROSENBLUM, J. 213 Or. App. 213 Defendant seeks reconsideration of our opinion in State v. Gaines, 211 Or.App. 356, 155 P.3d 61 (2007). She argues that we both misstated the facts and misconstrued the law when we affirmed her conviction for obstructing go......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT