Court Opinion

ID: 9618958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:20:05.207472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:34.289578
License: Public Domain

FOBT, J.,
specially concurring.
The majority points out:
“* * * The sole question is whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, was sufficient to go to the jury on the issue of whether defendant did any specific act that amounted to concealing or aiding Wright.”
On that point I concur since the evidence shows more than passive nondisclosure by this defendant. I agree the jury could find that he told the police an affirmative falsehood, which he knew at the time was a lie, concerning whether he had recently seen Wright.
*500Since that was the sole question presented, I do not find it necessary to decide whether the evidence here is sufficient to support the conclusion that this defendant knew that Wright had committed any felony, as ORS 161.230 now requires,① let alone either of the two murders or the taking away of a child with intent to detain from its parent of which Wright was ultimately convicted.
Accordingly, I concur in the result.

 Oregon Laws 1971, ch 743, § 432, repeals ORS 161.030. Section 207 of that chapter, entitled Hindering prosecution, replaces it. The commentary on § 207 accompanying the Proposed Oregon Criminal Code points out:
* ** The common law required that an accessory after the fact have guilty knowledge that the person aided committed the crime. This rule has been eliminated in modern legislation concerned specifically with aiding offenders to avoid arrest. The requirement of intent to hinder law enforcement makes unnecessary the further requirement of knowledge. Knowledge that the person aided has committed a crime is simply evidence of the intent to aid the offender to escape justice.”