14 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2026 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Beissergreen2 sentences2023See ORS 161.209 (“a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense * * * from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose”); State v. Beisser, 258 Or App 326, 334 , 308 P3d 1121 (2013) (“When a defendant raises the defense of self-defense, evi- dence of the alleged victim’s prior violent acts toward the defendant is admissible under OEC 404(1).”). 2023See ORS 161.209 (“a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense * * * from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose”); State v. Beisser, 258 Or App 326, 334 , 308 P3d 1121 (2013) (“When a defendant raises the defense of self-defense, evi- dence of the alleged victim’s prior violent acts toward the defendant is admissible under OEC 404(1).”). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Phillipsgreen2 sentences2024State v. Moreno, 287 Or App 205, 209 , 402 P3d 767 (2017); see also State v. Phillips, 317 Or App 169 , 174 n 1, 503 P3d 1282 (2022) (explaining that choice of evils is not an affirmative defense and that the state has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt whenever a defendant raises the defense by either pretrial notice or by presenting evidence in the defendant’s case-in-chief, which is the situa- tion in this case). 2024State v. Moreno, 287 Or App 205, 209 , 402 P3d 767 (2017); see also State v. Phillips, 317 Or App 169 , 174 n 1, 503 P3d 1282 (2022) (explaining that choice of evils is not an affirmative defense and that the state has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt whenever a defendant raises the defense by either pretrial notice or by presenting evidence in the defendant’s case-in-chief, which is the situa- tion in this case). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Skotlandgreen2 sentences2023The second exception is when a defendant raises a defense where the defendant “bears the initial burden of production, but fails to present any evidence, (e.g., an alibi defense).” Skotland, 326 Or App at 478 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). 2023The second exception is when a defendant raises a defense where the defendant “bears the initial burden of production, but fails to present any evidence, (e.g., an alibi defense).” Skotland, 326 Or App at 478 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lunowgreen2 sentences2014When a defendant raises the defense of self-defense, “evidence of the alleged victim’s prior violent acts toward the defendant is admissible under OEC 404(1).” Beisser, 258 Or App at 334 (citing State v. Lunow, 131 Or App 429 , 885 P2d 731 (1994)). 2014When a defendant raises the defense of self-defense, “evidence of the alleged victim’s prior violent acts toward the defendant is admissible under OEC 404(1).” Beisser, 258 Or App at 334 (citing State v. Lunow, 131 Or App 429 , 885 P2d 731 (1994)). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Laurelgreen2 sentences2024When a defendant raises the defense of self-defense, their “subjective beliefs and their objective reasonableness are factual issues for the jury.” Cox, 328 Or App at 235 (cit- ing Warren v. Baldwin, 140 Or App 318, 333-34 , 915 P2d 1016 , rev den, 324 Or 229 (1996)); see also State v. Laurel, 4 Or App 122, 127 , 476 P2d 817 (1970) (explaining that whether self-defense “was reasonable under all the circum- stances was a question ‘within the sole province of the jury in a criminal case’ ” (quoting State v. Hansen, 3 Or App 378, 384-85 , 474 P2d 17 (1970))); State v. Rader, 94 Or 432, 454 , 186 2024When a defendant raises the defense of self-defense, their “subjective beliefs and their objective reasonableness are factual issues for the jury.” Cox, 328 Or App at 235 (cit- ing Warren v. Baldwin, 140 Or App 318, 333-34 , 915 P2d 1016 , rev den, 324 Or 229 (1996)); see also State v. Laurel, 4 Or App 122, 127 , 476 P2d 817 (1970) (explaining that whether self-defense “was reasonable under all the circum- stances was a question ‘within the sole province of the jury in a criminal case’ ” (quoting State v. Hansen, 3 Or App 378, 384-85 , 474 P2d 17 (1970))); State v. Rader, 94 Or 432, 454 , 186 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hansengreen2 sentences2024When a defendant raises the defense of self-defense, their “subjective beliefs and their objective reasonableness are factual issues for the jury.” Cox, 328 Or App at 235 (cit- ing Warren v. Baldwin, 140 Or App 318, 333-34 , 915 P2d 1016 , rev den, 324 Or 229 (1996)); see also State v. Laurel, 4 Or App 122, 127 , 476 P2d 817 (1970) (explaining that whether self-defense “was reasonable under all the circum- stances was a question ‘within the sole province of the jury in a criminal case’ ” (quoting State v. Hansen, 3 Or App 378, 384-85 , 474 P2d 17 (1970))); State v. Rader, 94 Or 432, 454 , 186 2024When a defendant raises the defense of self-defense, their “subjective beliefs and their objective reasonableness are factual issues for the jury.” Cox, 328 Or App at 235 (cit- ing Warren v. Baldwin, 140 Or App 318, 333-34 , 915 P2d 1016 , rev den, 324 Or 229 (1996)); see also State v. Laurel, 4 Or App 122, 127 , 476 P2d 817 (1970) (explaining that whether self-defense “was reasonable under all the circum- stances was a question ‘within the sole province of the jury in a criminal case’ ” (quoting State v. Hansen, 3 Or App 378, 384-85 , 474 P2d 17 (1970))); State v. Rader, 94 Or 432, 454 , 186 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Murphygreen2 sentences2012Where a defendant raises the defense of entrapment, “the state has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” ORS 161.055(1); see also State v. Murphy, 21 Or App 630 , 535 P2d 779 (1975). 2012Where a defendant raises the defense of entrapment, “the state has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” ORS 161.055(1); see also State v. Murphy, 21 Or App 630 , 535 P2d 779 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Moreno
green
2 sentences2024State v. Moreno, 287 Or App 205, 209 , 402 P3d 767 (2017); see also State v. Phillips, 317 Or App 169 , 174 n 1, 503 P3d 1282 (2022) (explaining that choice of evils is not an affirmative defense and that the state has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt whenever a defendant raises the defense by either pretrial notice or by presenting evidence in the defendant’s case-in-chief, which is the situa- tion in this case). 2024State v. Moreno, 287 Or App 205, 209 , 402 P3d 767 (2017); see also State v. Phillips, 317 Or App 169 , 174 n 1, 503 P3d 1282 (2022) (explaining that choice of evils is not an affirmative defense and that the state has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt whenever a defendant raises the defense by either pretrial notice or by presenting evidence in the defendant’s case-in-chief, which is the situa- tion in this case). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Mayo
green
2 sentences2023In that circumstance, when 702 State v. Schneider a defendant decides to raise a defense, such as an alibi, and when a prosecutor comments on a defendant’s failure to present evidence in support of that defense, there is no realistic possibility of confusing jurors about the ultimate standard or burden of proof because “the defendant has vol- untarily assumed some burden of production by raising a ‘defense,’ under ORS 161.055(3).” Mayo, 303 Or App at 533 . 2023In that circumstance, when 702 State v. Schneider a defendant decides to raise a defense, such as an alibi, and when a prosecutor comments on a defendant’s failure to present evidence in support of that defense, there is no realistic possibility of confusing jurors about the ultimate standard or burden of proof because “the defendant has vol- untarily assumed some burden of production by raising a ‘defense,’ under ORS 161.055(3).” Mayo, 303 Or App at 533 . | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Rader
green
2 sentences2024When a defendant raises the defense of self-defense, their “subjective beliefs and their objective reasonableness are factual issues for the jury.” Cox, 328 Or App at 235 (cit- ing Warren v. Baldwin, 140 Or App 318, 333-34 , 915 P2d 1016 , rev den, 324 Or 229 (1996)); see also State v. Laurel, 4 Or App 122, 127 , 476 P2d 817 (1970) (explaining that whether self-defense “was reasonable under all the circum- stances was a question ‘within the sole province of the jury in a criminal case’ ” (quoting State v. Hansen, 3 Or App 378, 384-85 , 474 P2d 17 (1970))); State v. Rader, 94 Or 432, 454 , 186 2024When a defendant raises the defense of self-defense, their “subjective beliefs and their objective reasonableness are factual issues for the jury.” Cox, 328 Or App at 235 (cit- ing Warren v. Baldwin, 140 Or App 318, 333-34 , 915 P2d 1016 , rev den, 324 Or 229 (1996)); see also State v. Laurel, 4 Or App 122, 127 , 476 P2d 817 (1970) (explaining that whether self-defense “was reasonable under all the circum- stances was a question ‘within the sole province of the jury in a criminal case’ ” (quoting State v. Hansen, 3 Or App 378, 384-85 , 474 P2d 17 (1970))); State v. Rader, 94 Or 432, 454 , 186 | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Warren v. Baldwin
green
2 sentences2024When a defendant raises the defense of self-defense, their “subjective beliefs and their objective reasonableness are factual issues for the jury.” Cox, 328 Or App at 235 (cit- ing Warren v. Baldwin, 140 Or App 318, 333-34 , 915 P2d 1016 , rev den, 324 Or 229 (1996)); see also State v. Laurel, 4 Or App 122, 127 , 476 P2d 817 (1970) (explaining that whether self-defense “was reasonable under all the circum- stances was a question ‘within the sole province of the jury in a criminal case’ ” (quoting State v. Hansen, 3 Or App 378, 384-85 , 474 P2d 17 (1970))); State v. Rader, 94 Or 432, 454 , 186 2024When a defendant raises the defense of self-defense, their “subjective beliefs and their objective reasonableness are factual issues for the jury.” Cox, 328 Or App at 235 (cit- ing Warren v. Baldwin, 140 Or App 318, 333-34 , 915 P2d 1016 , rev den, 324 Or 229 (1996)); see also State v. Laurel, 4 Or App 122, 127 , 476 P2d 817 (1970) (explaining that whether self-defense “was reasonable under all the circum- stances was a question ‘within the sole province of the jury in a criminal case’ ” (quoting State v. Hansen, 3 Or App 378, 384-85 , 474 P2d 17 (1970))); State v. Rader, 94 Or 432, 454 , 186 | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Fontana v. Steenson
green
2 sentences1998Fontana v. Steenson, 145 Or App 229, 232 , 929 P2d 336 (1996). 1998Fontana v. Steenson, 145 Or App 229, 232 , 929 P2d 336 (1996). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.