gave instruction in Oregon

2026An example of the former is State v. Gray, 261 Or App 121, 125 , 322 P3d 1094 (2014), in which the trial court gave no instruction on a culpable mental state for the forcible-compulsion element of two crimes, the defendant did not object, the defendant assigned error to the omission on appeal, and we recog- nized the claim of error as unpreserved.

2026An example of the former is State v. Gray, 261 Or App 121, 125 , 322 P3d 1094 (2014), in which the trial court gave no instruction on a culpable mental state for the forcible-compulsion element of two crimes, the defendant did not object, the defendant assigned error to the omission on appeal, and we recog- nized the claim of error as unpreserved.

2025In the post-conviction court, relying on Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US 83 , 140 S Ct 1390 , 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), petitioner alleged that his trial counsel’s perfor- mance was deficient for failing to request unanimous-verdict jury instructions and for failing to poll the jury.

2025In the post-conviction court, relying on Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US 83 , 140 S Ct 1390 , 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), petitioner alleged that his trial counsel’s perfor- mance was deficient for failing to request unanimous-verdict jury instructions and for failing to poll the jury.

2025In the post-conviction court, relying on Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US 83 , 140 S Ct 1390 , 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), petitioner alleged that his trial counsel’s perfor- mance was deficient for failing to request unanimous-verdict jury instructions and for failing to poll the jury.

2025In the post-conviction court, relying on Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US 83 , 140 S Ct 1390 , 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), petitioner alleged that his trial counsel’s perfor- mance was deficient for failing to request unanimous-verdict jury instructions and for failing to poll the jury.

2021Deere had requested and the trial court gave an instruction that a man- ufacturer, distributor, or seller is not liable “when it delivers the product in a safe condition and subsequent mishandling or other causes make it harmful by the time it was used.” Plaintiff objected to the instruction but contended that, if the jury was to be instructed regarding “mishandling” as a potential cause, “then it should also be instructed on the longstanding principle, acknowledged in Hernandez, that ‘incidental carelessness or negligent failure to discover or guard against a product defect is not an appropri

2013The only possible basis for the instruction was a conflict between the defendant’s and another witness’s testimony at trial. 106 Or App at 395 .

2011The court gave an instruction very similar to the one in this case, “Uniform Criminal Instruction No. 1052, ‘Aider Or Abettor — Liability For Probable Consequences’ “A person who aids or abets another in committing a crime, in addition to being criminally responsible for the crime that is committed, is also criminally responsible for any acts or other crimes that were committed as a natural and probable consequence of the planning, preparation, or commission of the intended crime.” Lopez-Minjarez, 236 Or App at 275 .

2011In closing argument, “the prosecutor highlighted the natural and probable consequences principle as a significant feature of accomplice liability.” Id. at 277 .

2008See Smith, 310 Or. at 27-28 , 791 P.2d 836 (quick intervention by the trial court helps cure potential prejudice); cf. State v. Halford, 101 Or.App. 660, 663 , 792 P.2d 467 (1990) (an instruction at the close of trial that the defendant had an absolute constitutional right not to testify and that his decision not to testify could not be considered an indication of guilt was insufficient to cure prejudice because it was not timely given).

2008See Smith, 310 Or. at 27-28 , 791 P.2d 836 (quick intervention by the trial court helps cure potential prejudice); cf. State v. Halford, 101 Or.App. 660, 663 , 792 P.2d 467 (1990) (an instruction at the close of trial that the defendant had an absolute constitutional right not to testify and that his decision not to testify could not be considered an indication of guilt was insufficient to cure prejudice because it was not timely given).

2003See Davis v. O’Brien, 320 Or 729, 737 , 891 P2d 1307 (1995) (rules pertaining to preservation of error are intended to advance goals such as ensuring that parties clearly present arguments to trial court and that parties are *503 not taken by surprise, misled, or denied opportunities to contest opposing arguments); Delaney v. Taco Time Int’l., 297 Or 10, 18 , 681 P2d 114 (1984) (purpose of requiring exceptions to jury instructions is to give trial court opportunity to correct instruction).

2003See Davis v. O’Brien, 320 Or 729, 737 , 891 P2d 1307 (1995) (rules pertaining to preservation of error are intended to advance goals such as ensuring that parties clearly present arguments to trial court and that parties are *503 not taken by surprise, misled, or denied opportunities to contest opposing arguments); Delaney v. Taco Time Int’l., 297 Or 10, 18 , 681 P2d 114 (1984) (purpose of requiring exceptions to jury instructions is to give trial court opportunity to correct instruction).

1993Kabil Developments Corp. v. Mignot, 279 Or 151, 158-59 , 566 P2d 505 (1977). *107 Plaintiffs’ second requested instruction contains two parts.

1993Kabil Developments Corp. v. Mignot, 279 Or 151, 158-59 , 566 P2d 505 (1977). *107 Plaintiffs’ second requested instruction contains two parts.

1989The trial court gave that instruction on the basis of State v. Strickland, 36 Or App 119 , 584 P2d 310 (1978).

1989The trial court gave that instruction on the basis of State v. Strickland, 36 Or App 119 , 584 P2d 310 (1978).

1989Further, defendant asserts that the trial court gave an instruction on an inference or presumption, which may be impermissible “when used against a defendant with reference to an element of the crime * * State v. Rainey, 298 Or 459, 466 , 693 P2d 635 (1985). 4 The disputed instruction was neither an inference nor a presumption within the meaning of Rainey .

1989Further, defendant asserts that the trial court gave an instruction on an inference or presumption, which may be impermissible “when used against a defendant with reference to an element of the crime * * State v. Rainey, 298 Or 459, 466 , 693 P2d 635 (1985). 4 The disputed instruction was neither an inference nor a presumption within the meaning of Rainey .

1985Therefore, if weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered when it is within the power of a party to produce stronger and more satisfactory evidence, then the evidence offered should be viewed by you with distrust.” In State v. Mains, 295 Or 640 , 669 P2d 1112 (1983), the court held that the “weaker and less satisfactory evidence” instruction should not be given in criminal cases regardless of whether the defendant takes the stand, except when the defendant has the burden of proof on an issue in the case.

1985Therefore, if weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered when it is within the power of a party to produce stronger and more satisfactory evidence, then the evidence offered should be viewed by you with distrust.” In State v. Mains, 295 Or 640 , 669 P2d 1112 (1983), the court held that the “weaker and less satisfactory evidence” instruction should not be given in criminal cases regardless of whether the defendant takes the stand, except when the defendant has the burden of proof on an issue in the case.

1984Becker v. Beaverton School District, 25 Or App 879, 884 , 551 P2d 498 (1976).

1984Becker v. Beaverton School District, 25 Or App 879, 884 , 551 P2d 498 (1976).

1978Another way of saying it is that negligence or an act or omission is a cause of damage if it is a substantial factor in producing the damage.* * Defendant excepted as follows: "Second, we except to the Court’s instruction on the — the Court gave the instruction on proximate cause, and then the Court added that proximate cause is that cause which — 'is a substantial factor in producing the damage.’ I realize there is a host of cases to that effect, but it is my belief, Your Honor, that that language is entirely meaningless to the jury and permits the jury to, in effect, find causation absent ca

1978Defendant excepted to the court’s failure to give his requested instruction defining "extreme emotional disturbance.” Instead the court gave an instruction in substantially the form we found not to be erroneous in State v. Akridge, 23 Or App 633 , 543 P2d 1073 (1975), rev den (1976).

1978Defendant excepted to the court’s failure to give his requested instruction defining "extreme emotional disturbance.” Instead the court gave an instruction in substantially the form we found not to be erroneous in State v. Akridge, 23 Or App 633 , 543 P2d 1073 (1975), rev den (1976).

1977It is your duty to determine whether or not there was such flight or concealment and if you find there was, then it is your duty also to determine what the defendant’s purpose or motive was which prompted him to act in that manner.” Defendant excepted to the instruction, but the terms of the exception were not particularly clear. 1 In this court defendant argues, in part at least, that no flight instruction ought to have been given, relying on State v. McCormick, 28 Or App 821 , 561 P2d 665 , *[706] Sup Ct review allowed (1977).

1977It is your duty to determine whether or not there was such flight or concealment and if you find there was, then it is your duty also to determine what the defendant’s purpose or motive was which prompted him to act in that manner.” Defendant excepted to the instruction, but the terms of the exception were not particularly clear. 1 In this court defendant argues, in part at least, that no flight instruction ought to have been given, relying on State v. McCormick, 28 Or App 821 , 561 P2d 665 , *[706] Sup Ct review allowed (1977).

1977In other words, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt a causal relationship between acts alleged to have been done by the Defendant and the death of Peggy Ann Conant.” Instead, the trial court gave this instruction: " * * * Now in order to establish criminally negligent homicide, the State of Oregon must prove to you * * * fourthly, that the defendant caused Mrs. Conant’s death by striking her with his fists and by pushing her as alleged in the Information.” Defendant argues that an instruction calling for a specific jury finding on peritonitis as the causal link between the beating a

1977In other words, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt a causal relationship between acts alleged to have been done by the Defendant and the death of Peggy Ann Conant.” Instead, the trial court gave this instruction: " * * * Now in order to establish criminally negligent homicide, the State of Oregon must prove to you * * * fourthly, that the defendant caused Mrs. Conant’s death by striking her with his fists and by pushing her as alleged in the Information.” Defendant argues that an instruction calling for a specific jury finding on peritonitis as the causal link between the beating a

1967See, also, State v. Commedore, 237 Or 348, 354 , 391 P2d 605 ; Hamilton v. Union Oil Company et al, 216 Or 354, 367-368 , 339 P2d 440 ; State v. Kader, 201 Or 300, 336 , 270 P2d 160 ; Wilson v. State Ind. Acc. Comm., 189 Or 114, 124 , 219 P2d 138 ; Lane v. Hatfield, 173 Or 79, 87 , 143 P2d 230 . *569 Precisely in point is State v. Commedore, supra, a criminal case in which the court gave an instruction on voluntary intoxication to which the defendant excepted in this language: “Defendant excepts to the instruction on intoxication.” We said: “That exception was too general to acquaint the court

1967See, also, State v. Commedore, 237 Or 348, 354 , 391 P2d 605 ; Hamilton v. Union Oil Company et al, 216 Or 354, 367-368 , 339 P2d 440 ; State v. Kader, 201 Or 300, 336 , 270 P2d 160 ; Wilson v. State Ind. Acc. Comm., 189 Or 114, 124 , 219 P2d 138 ; Lane v. Hatfield, 173 Or 79, 87 , 143 P2d 230 . *569 Precisely in point is State v. Commedore, supra, a criminal case in which the court gave an instruction on voluntary intoxication to which the defendant excepted in this language: “Defendant excepts to the instruction on intoxication.” We said: “That exception was too general to acquaint the court

1967See, also, State v. Commedore, 237 Or 348, 354 , 391 P2d 605 ; Hamilton v. Union Oil Company et al, 216 Or 354, 367-368 , 339 P2d 440 ; State v. Kader, 201 Or 300, 336 , 270 P2d 160 ; Wilson v. State Ind. Acc. Comm., 189 Or 114, 124 , 219 P2d 138 ; Lane v. Hatfield, 173 Or 79, 87 , 143 P2d 230 . *569 Precisely in point is State v. Commedore, supra, a criminal case in which the court gave an instruction on voluntary intoxication to which the defendant excepted in this language: “Defendant excepts to the instruction on intoxication.” We said: “That exception was too general to acquaint the court

1967See, also, State v. Commedore, 237 Or 348, 354 , 391 P2d 605 ; Hamilton v. Union Oil Company et al, 216 Or 354, 367-368 , 339 P2d 440 ; State v. Kader, 201 Or 300, 336 , 270 P2d 160 ; Wilson v. State Ind. Acc. Comm., 189 Or 114, 124 , 219 P2d 138 ; Lane v. Hatfield, 173 Or 79, 87 , 143 P2d 230 . *569 Precisely in point is State v. Commedore, supra, a criminal case in which the court gave an instruction on voluntary intoxication to which the defendant excepted in this language: “Defendant excepts to the instruction on intoxication.” We said: “That exception was too general to acquaint the court

1967See, also, State v. Commedore, 237 Or 348, 354 , 391 P2d 605 ; Hamilton v. Union Oil Company et al, 216 Or 354, 367-368 , 339 P2d 440 ; State v. Kader, 201 Or 300, 336 , 270 P2d 160 ; Wilson v. State Ind. Acc. Comm., 189 Or 114, 124 , 219 P2d 138 ; Lane v. Hatfield, 173 Or 79, 87 , 143 P2d 230 . *569 Precisely in point is State v. Commedore, supra, a criminal case in which the court gave an instruction on voluntary intoxication to which the defendant excepted in this language: “Defendant excepts to the instruction on intoxication.” We said: “That exception was too general to acquaint the court

1967See, also, State v. Commedore, 237 Or 348, 354 , 391 P2d 605 ; Hamilton v. Union Oil Company et al, 216 Or 354, 367-368 , 339 P2d 440 ; State v. Kader, 201 Or 300, 336 , 270 P2d 160 ; Wilson v. State Ind. Acc. Comm., 189 Or 114, 124 , 219 P2d 138 ; Lane v. Hatfield, 173 Or 79, 87 , 143 P2d 230 . *569 Precisely in point is State v. Commedore, supra, a criminal case in which the court gave an instruction on voluntary intoxication to which the defendant excepted in this language: “Defendant excepts to the instruction on intoxication.” We said: “That exception was too general to acquaint the court

1967See, also, State v. Commedore, 237 Or 348, 354 , 391 P2d 605 ; Hamilton v. Union Oil Company et al, 216 Or 354, 367-368 , 339 P2d 440 ; State v. Kader, 201 Or 300, 336 , 270 P2d 160 ; Wilson v. State Ind. Acc. Comm., 189 Or 114, 124 , 219 P2d 138 ; Lane v. Hatfield, 173 Or 79, 87 , 143 P2d 230 . *569 Precisely in point is State v. Commedore, supra, a criminal case in which the court gave an instruction on voluntary intoxication to which the defendant excepted in this language: “Defendant excepts to the instruction on intoxication.” We said: “That exception was too general to acquaint the court

1967See, also, State v. Commedore, 237 Or 348, 354 , 391 P2d 605 ; Hamilton v. Union Oil Company et al, 216 Or 354, 367-368 , 339 P2d 440 ; State v. Kader, 201 Or 300, 336 , 270 P2d 160 ; Wilson v. State Ind. Acc. Comm., 189 Or 114, 124 , 219 P2d 138 ; Lane v. Hatfield, 173 Or 79, 87 , 143 P2d 230 . *569 Precisely in point is State v. Commedore, supra, a criminal case in which the court gave an instruction on voluntary intoxication to which the defendant excepted in this language: “Defendant excepts to the instruction on intoxication.” We said: “That exception was too general to acquaint the court

1967In Parmentier v. Ransom, 179 Or 17, at 24 , 169 P2d 883 (1946), we said: “* * * It is the settled law of this jurisdiction that instructions are to be considered as an entirety.

1967In Parmentier v. Ransom, 179 Or 17, at 24 , 169 P2d 883 (1946), we said: “* * * It is the settled law of this jurisdiction that instructions are to be considered as an entirety.

1963This court held the instruction being a copy of the statute “* * * was entirely proper.” Cases charging criminal adultery like State v. Scott, 1895, 28 Or 331 , 42 P 1 , are not in point.

1963This court held the instruction being a copy of the statute “* * * was entirely proper.” Cases charging criminal adultery like State v. Scott, 1895, 28 Or 331 , 42 P 1 , are not in point.