2017 ORS 162.325¹
Hindering prosecution

(1) A person commits the crime of hindering prosecution if, with intent to hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of a person who has committed a crime punishable as a felony, or with the intent to assist a person who has committed a crime punishable as a felony in profiting or benefiting from the commission of the crime, the person:

(a) Harbors or conceals such person; or

(b) Warns such person of impending discovery or apprehension; or

(c) Provides or aids in providing such person with money, transportation, weapon, disguise or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension; or

(d) Prevents or obstructs, by means of force, intimidation or deception, anyone from performing an act which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such person; or

(e) Suppresses by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction physical evidence which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such person; or

(f) Aids such person in securing or protecting the proceeds of the crime.

(2) Hindering prosecution is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §207]

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 161.230)

Where court may punish crime committed by principal either as felony or by imposing lesser punish­ment resulting in classifica­tion as misdemeanor, elec­tion to punish as misdemeanor does not affect status of per­son charged with hindering pros­e­cu­­tion. State v. Shay, 8 Or App 360, 493 P2d 737 (1972), Sup Ct review denied

The mere denial of knowledge of whereabouts of offender did not amount to accessorial con­duct; there must also have been evidence from which jury could infer that actor told lie with intent to aid offender and that lie was, under existing circumstances, likely to aid offender to escape arrest or punish­ment. State v. Clifford, 263 Or 436, 502 P2d 1371 (1972)

In General

Informa­tion, which merely alleged that defendant had hindered pros­e­cu­­tion by with­hold­ing eyewitness testimony in order to protect himself, was insufficient to charge defendant under this sec­tion, and thus arrest warrant on hindering pros­e­cu­­tion charge was invalidly issued. State v. Christian, 35 Or App 339, 581 P2d 132 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Person suspected of crime who fails to turn himself in is not therefore subject to pros­e­cu­­tion under this sec­tion for hindering his own pros­e­cu­­tion. State v. Christian, 35 Or App 339, 581 P2d 132 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Where police went to defendant’s residence to arrest robbery suspect allegedly staying there, defendant produced no identifica­tion but gave alias used by suspect, and police took defendant into custody pursuant to arrest warrant but were uncertain as to whether she was in fact the suspect, police had probable cause to con­duct search to determine if suspect named in warrant was within residence; thus, evidence resulting from search, i.e., suspect whom defendant was charged under this sec­tion with concealing, was admissible. State v. Jordan, 36 Or App 45, 583 P2d 1161 (1978), aff’d 288 Or 391, 605 P2d 646 (1980)

Defendant’s denials, which hindered his co-defendant’s pros­e­cu­­tion but served his own interest against self-incrimina­tion, could not form the basis for con­vic­­tion for hindering pros­e­cu­­tion. State v. Pugh, 55 Or App 305, 637 P2d 1325 (1981)

Juvenile whose pros­e­cu­­tion is hindered may commit “crime” punishable as felony regardless of whether juvenile is subject to crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­­tion, con­vic­­tion or punish­ment. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Fitch, 192 Or App 56, 84 P3d 190 (2004), Sup Ct review denied

Act of omission in failing to respond to inquiries by law en­force­­ment authorities may constitute harboring or concealing of fugitive. State v. Turley, 202 Or App 40, 120 P3d 1229 (2005), Sup Ct review denied; distinguished in State v. Hutchins, 281 Or App 495, 383 P3d 399 (2016)

Where conceal­ment, altera­tion or destruc­tion of physical evidence does not affect discovery or apprehension of per­son, but may prevent discovery that per­son has committed crime, then conceal­ment, altera­tion or destruc­tion does not constitute hindering pros­e­cu­­tion. State v. Werdell, 340 Or 590, 136 P3d 17 (2006)

Person commits crime of hindering pros­e­cu­­tion if per­son hinders apprehension of juvenile where juvenile con­duct constitutes crime punishable as felony in crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ing. State v. McCullough, 347 Or 350, 220 P3d 1182 (2009)

To prove that defendant hindered pros­e­cu­­tion by “conceal[ing]” a “per­son” under subsec­tion (1)(a) of this sec­tion, state must present evidence from which jury could reasonably conclude that defendant concealed that per­son’s physical presence and something more than at­tempting to obscure that per­son’s identity through decep­tion; therefore, where defendant and an­oth­er per­son both spoke to law en­force­­ment of­fi­cers from inside building and defendant sub­se­quently failed to provide of­fi­cers with in­for­ma­­tion about identity of other per­son or to open door, state did not present sufficient evidence that defendant concealed per­son who was a fugitive. State v. Hutchins, 281 Or App 495, 383 P3d 399 (2016)

Because guest who is sheltered and received by owner or occupant of prop­erty cannot, by same ac­tion, shelter and receive host, guest cannot harbor fugitive-host under this sec­tion; thus, jury could not permissibly find that defendant harbored fugitive under this sec­tion where defendant was guest in shed that was fugitive’s own abode. State v. Hutchins, 281 Or App 495, 383 P3d 399 (2016)

Chapter 162

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 162—Offenses Against the State and Public Justice, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors162.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 162, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano162.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.