Riot
Source:
Section 166.015 — Riot, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors166.html.
Notes of Decisions
Under former similar statute (ORS 166.040)
The names of co-participants were not an essential element of this offense. State v. Nussbaum, 261 Or 87, 491 P2d 1013 (1971)
In general
Where four of seven other men participated actively with defendant in fighting and the other three men stood at the scene of the fight to prevent friends of victim from coming to his aid, jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that all seven men named in indictment participated by their deeds with defendant in tumultuous and violent conduct. State v. Chavez, 65 Or App 534, 671 P2d 708 (1983), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendant and fellow gang member beat victim and other gang members gathered around and cheered during beating, there was sufficient evidence of concerted action for jury to find defendant guilty of riot. State v. Hicks, 120 Or App 345, 852 P2d 894 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
“Grave risk of public alarm” is not unconstitutionally vague description because alarming public in general requires that alarm be objectively reasonable response to conduct. State v. Chakerian, 135 Or App 368, 900 P2d 511 (1995), aff’d 325 Or 370, 938 P2d 756 (1997)
“Participating with” other persons means engaging in common disorder, not sharing of common purpose or intent. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Saechao, 167 Or App 227, 2 P3d 935 (2000), Sup Ct review denied
Whether conduct is “tumultuous and violent” depends on how conduct viewed in whole would reasonably be perceived when related to specific situation. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Saechao, 167 Or App 227, 2 P3d 935 (2000), Sup Ct review denied
Law Review Citations
In general
51 OLR 613-624 (1972)
Up to date