Willamette Law Online

Oregon Court of Appeals


ListPreviousNext


State v. Pinckney

Summarized by: 

Date Filed: 03-27-2013
Case #: A147448
Per Curiam
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A147448.pdf

Criminal Law: "Use" under ORS 166.220(1)(a) includes both physical force and the threat of physical force, and a trial court does not err when it rejects a proposed jury instruction that states that "use" includes only actual force.

Defendant appeals his conviction for unlawful use of a weapon on the grounds that the trial court failed to use his requested jury instruction defining "use of a dangerous weapon." Defendant's proposed instruction excluded threatening to use a dangerous weapon from the definition of "use" of that weapon. The Court of Appeals disagreed with Defendant and held as they recently did in State v. Ziska that "use" under ORS 166.220(1)(a) includes both physical force and the threat of physical force. Therefore, the instruction that Defendant requested misstated the law, and the trial court did not err in rejecting it. Affirmed.