State v. Bradford

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 06-17-2015
  • Case #: A156606
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Before Ortega, P.J.; DeVore, J.; and Garrett, J. Per Curium.
  • Full Text Opinion

When a defendant raises self-defense at a trial alleging assault and harassment, it is improper to give the jury a defense of premises instruction.

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for fourth-degree assault under ORS 163.160 and harassment under ORS 163.065, assigning error to the trial court's defense of premises instruction to the jury that Victim's use of force against Defendant was lawful if Victim reasonably believed that Defendant was committing criminal trespass. Defendant argued that State v. Oliphant and State v. Carlon held that the jury instruction allowing consideration of Victim's use of force in defense of premises was irrelevant to the jury's consideration of Defendant's self-defense theory because it shifted consideration of Defendant's perspective of Victim's use of force to Victim's perspective of Defendant's use of force. The State agreed that the instruction was erroneous, and the Court held the instruction was not harmless. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search