Lizarraga-Regalado v. Premo

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
  • Date Filed: 03-01-2017
  • Case #: A154944
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Haselton, S.J. for the Court; Sercombe, P.J.; & Tookey, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Counsel's failure to object to the “natural and probable consequences” uniform jury instruction, similar to State v. Lopez-Minjarez, constitutes a failure to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment.

Petitioner appealed the denial of his post-conviction relief, arguing that his counsel was incompetent because he failed to challenge the "natural and probable consequences" uniform jury instruction. Failure to challenge such an instruction was disapproved of by the Oregon Supreme Court in State v. Lopez-Minjarez. The Court found that counsel failed to object to the jury instructions. Counsel needed to research and analyze case law, determine whether the "natural and probable consequences" instruction was compatible with the existing law of accomplice liability, and any reasonable counsel would have objected. Therefore, there was a failure of counsel to exercise reasonable, professional skill and judgment. Petitioner's denial of post-conviction relief on the issue of counsel's failure to object was reversed and remanded.
3.6

Advanced Search