293 Or. App. 697 - State v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"And, Judge, now we're at the statute looking at-and you as the fact finder get to decide this, whether my client's actions intentionally-(inaudible) charged here, intentionally created a substantial risk of physical injury to any person. * * * "What do we have here? Resist-again under the statute-'resist' means the use or threatened use of violence, okay? So there's no evidence that my client threatened violence or used violence against the officers, Your Honor. Physical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk-I think substantial is important here, Your Honor-substantial risk of physical injury to any person. We've already talked about physical injury, that's been defined by statute, you know what that means, substantial pain or impairment of physical condition. So did my client's actions intentionally, not the police officers' actions but my client's actions intentionally create a substantial-which I believe means, you know, fairly high level, Your Honor-risk of physical injury to any of the four of them that were involved in this attempt to handcuff my client? I would assert, Your Honor, that my client's actions by simply tensing up his arms to his side did not create a substantial risk of injury to himself or any of the officers. I would argue on the contrary, the officers' actions in escalating the situation in tackling him to the floor created a substantial risk. "In fact, [the state] asked two of the officers if in their opinion my client's actions cre”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 294 Or. App. 825 - State v. Anderson

2. “"Defendant's argument is one of statutory construction. However, it is not one that defendant made below. * * * "Although [defendant] did argue that ORS 162.315 requires proof that he 'had the conscious objective to create a substantial risk of physical injury' to himself or the officers, he never asked the trial court to determine the sufficiency of the evidence on that question. In the trial court, the statement most closely connected to defendant's argument on appeal is the following: 'Judge, now we're at the statute looking at-and you as the fact finder get to decide this, whether my client's actions intentionally-(inaudible) charged here-intentionally created a substantial risk of physical injury to any person.' That did not present a legal argument about the sufficiency of the evidence of defendant's mental state; instead, it was a factual argument about how the court, as factfinder, should view the evidence. "Accordingly, defendant's argument is unpreserved, and we decline to address it."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 294 Or. App. 825 - State v. Anderson

3. “had the conscious objective to create a substantial risk of physical injury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 294 Or. App. 825 - State v. Anderson