Oregon Appellate Court, April 1, 2020

by: Rankin Johnson • April 2, 2020 • no comments

Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA

JURY INSTRUCTIONS - Confusion of the jury

In assault trial court did not err in declining to give jury instructions defining "substantial pain" and "impairment of physical condition." Affirmed.

The Court of Appeals explained that the instructions, while correct in the abstract, could have been confusing and were not necessary in light of other instructions.

State v. Shoemaker 303 Or App 230 (April 1, 2020) (Armstrong) (Deschutes County, Flint)

TRIAL PROCEDURE - Jury waiver

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying request to withdraw jury-trial waiver. Affirmed.

Defendant sought to withdraw her the waiver on the day of trial, when no jurors were available. Defendant did not give a reason, and in ruling the court only observed that defendant validly waived jury the day before trial.

State v. Hayter 303 Or App 235 (April 1, 2020) (Armstrong) (Washington County, Wipper)

APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Harmlessness

Trial court did not err by excluding evidence of prior incident in support of defendant's self-defense argument. Affirmed.

Defendant was accused of menacing and unlawful use of a weapon after he brandished a firearm during a demonstration which he was filming. He sought to offer evidence that his arm was broken a year before by someone he was filming, to show why he believed he was in danger. But, because self-defense must be based on an objectively reasonable belief, the defendant's personal experience is not relevant.

State v. Strickland 303 Or App 240 (April 1, 2020) (Armstrong) (Multnomah County, Ryan)

APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Harmlessness

Trial court erred by permitting prosecutor to argue that stains on defendant's gloves were blood, but error was harmless. Affirmed.

State v. XXX 303 Or App 1 (April 1, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Harmlessness

Trial court erred by permitting prosecutor to argue that stains on defendant's gloves were blood, but error was harmless. Affirmed.

State v. XXX 303 Or App 1 (April 1, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Harmlessness

Trial court erred by permitting prosecutor to argue that stains on defendant's gloves were blood, but error was harmless. Affirmed.

State v. XXX 303 Or App 1 (April 1, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Harmlessness

Trial court erred by permitting prosecutor to argue that stains on defendant's gloves were blood, but error was harmless. Affirmed.

State v. XXX 303 Or App 1 (April 1, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Harmlessness

Trial court erred by permitting prosecutor to argue that stains on defendant's gloves were blood, but error was harmless. Affirmed.

State v. XXX 303 Or App 1 (April 1, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Harmlessness

Trial court erred by permitting prosecutor to argue that stains on defendant's gloves were blood, but error was harmless. Affirmed.

State v. XXX 303 Or App 1 (April 1, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Harmlessness

Trial court erred by permitting prosecutor to argue that stains on defendant's gloves were blood, but error was harmless. Affirmed.

State v. XXX 303 Or App 1 (April 1, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Harmlessness

Trial court erred by permitting prosecutor to argue that stains on defendant's gloves were blood, but error was harmless. Affirmed.

State v. XXX 303 Or App 1 (April 1, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Harmlessness

Trial court erred by permitting prosecutor to argue that stains on defendant's gloves were blood, but error was harmless. Affirmed.

State v. XXX 303 Or App 1 (April 1, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)