beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in Oregon

1992Hicks v. Feiock, 485 US 624 , 108 S Ct 1423 , 99 L Ed 2d 721 (1988).

1992Hicks v. Feiock, 485 US 624 , 108 S Ct 1423 , 99 L Ed 2d 721 (1988).

2025First, subject to exceptions not implicated here, “it is improper for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s failure to present evidence at trial because such comments ‘may reasonably cause the factfinder to misapprehend and misallocate the burden of proof.’ ” State v. Dumdei, 337 Or App 246, 251 , 562 P3d 634 , rev den, 373 Or 736 (2025) (quot- ing State v. Spieler, 269 Or App 623, 641 , 346 P3d 541 (2015)); State v. Smith, 334 Or App 89, 94-95 , 554 P3d 817 (2024),rev den, 374 Or 143 (2025) (stating the same principle).1 This principle applies regardless of whether a defendant elects to pr

2025First, subject to exceptions not implicated here, “it is improper for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s failure to present evidence at trial because such comments ‘may reasonably cause the factfinder to misapprehend and misallocate the burden of proof.’ ” State v. Dumdei, 337 Or App 246, 251 , 562 P3d 634 , rev den, 373 Or 736 (2025) (quot- ing State v. Spieler, 269 Or App 623, 641 , 346 P3d 541 (2015)); State v. Smith, 334 Or App 89, 94-95 , 554 P3d 817 (2024),rev den, 374 Or 143 (2025) (stating the same principle).1 This principle applies regardless of whether a defendant elects to pr

2025First, subject to exceptions not implicated here, “it is improper for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s failure to present evidence at trial because such comments ‘may reasonably cause the factfinder to misapprehend and misallocate the burden of proof.’ ” State v. Dumdei, 337 Or App 246, 251 , 562 P3d 634 , rev den, 373 Or 736 (2025) (quot- ing State v. Spieler, 269 Or App 623, 641 , 346 P3d 541 (2015)); State v. Smith, 334 Or App 89, 94-95 , 554 P3d 817 (2024),rev den, 374 Or 143 (2025) (stating the same principle).1 This principle applies regardless of whether a defendant elects to pr

2025First, subject to exceptions not implicated here, “it is improper for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s failure to present evidence at trial because such comments ‘may reasonably cause the factfinder to misapprehend and misallocate the burden of proof.’ ” State v. Dumdei, 337 Or App 246, 251 , 562 P3d 634 , rev den, 373 Or 736 (2025) (quot- ing State v. Spieler, 269 Or App 623, 641 , 346 P3d 541 (2015)); State v. Smith, 334 Or App 89, 94-95 , 554 P3d 817 (2024),rev den, 374 Or 143 (2025) (stating the same principle).1 This principle applies regardless of whether a defendant elects to pr

2025First, subject to exceptions not implicated here, “it is improper for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s failure to present evidence at trial because such comments ‘may reasonably cause the factfinder to misapprehend and misallocate the burden of proof.’ ” State v. Dumdei, 337 Or App 246, 251 , 562 P3d 634 , rev den, 373 Or 736 (2025) (quot- ing State v. Spieler, 269 Or App 623, 641 , 346 P3d 541 (2015)); State v. Smith, 334 Or App 89, 94-95 , 554 P3d 817 (2024),rev den, 374 Or 143 (2025) (stating the same principle).1 This principle applies regardless of whether a defendant elects to pr

2024An “error is harmless if there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict or substantially affected the defendant’s rights.” State v. Garcia, 284 Or App 357, 363 , 392 P3d 815 , rev den, 361 Or 645 (2017).

2024An “error is harmless if there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict or substantially affected the defendant’s rights.” State v. Garcia, 284 Or App 357, 363 , 392 P3d 815 , rev den, 361 Or 645 (2017).

2022In turn, the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard “impress[es] upon the factfinder the need to reach a sub- jective state of near certitude of the guilt of the accused.” Id. at 15 .

2020Id.

2020Here, the jury was prop- erly instructed on the elements of each count, the beyond-a- reasonable-doubt standard, its “duty to weigh the evidence calmly and dispassionately,” and its obligation to “return a verdict of not guilty if, after careful and impartial consider- ation of all the evidence in the case, you are not convinced to a moral certainty that the defendant is guilty.” Giving appropriate weight to the “almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions,” Marsh, 481 US at 206 , the fact that the jury returned unanimous verdicts on four counts tells us that

1993Cf. Matter of Bluebird, 105 NC App 42, 411 SE2d 820 (1992).

1990State v. Jackson, 64 Or App 667, 669 , 669 P2d 826 (1983). 3 ORS 161.155 provides, in relevant part: “A person is criminally liable for the conduct of another person constituting a crime if: "* * * * * “(2) With the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime the person: "* * * * * “(b) Aids or abets or agrees or attempts to aid or abet such other person in planning or committing the crime.” 4 ORS 419.500(1) provides, in relevant part: “The facts alleged in the petition showing the child to be within the jurisdiction of the court as provided in ORS 419.476(1), unless admitted,

1990State v. Jackson, 64 Or App 667, 669 , 669 P2d 826 (1983). 3 ORS 161.155 provides, in relevant part: “A person is criminally liable for the conduct of another person constituting a crime if: "* * * * * “(2) With the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime the person: "* * * * * “(b) Aids or abets or agrees or attempts to aid or abet such other person in planning or committing the crime.” 4 ORS 419.500(1) provides, in relevant part: “The facts alleged in the petition showing the child to be within the jurisdiction of the court as provided in ORS 419.476(1), unless admitted,

1978The standard for determining whether a person is able to provide for basic needs was set forth by this court in State v. Alexander, 26 Or App 943, 946 , 554 P2d 524 (1976): "The ability of one to care for himself requires a finding of existing conditions.” A finding that a person is unable to provide for basic needs must be accompanied by a determination that the inability is due to a mental disorder.

1978The standard for determining whether a person is able to provide for basic needs was set forth by this court in State v. Alexander, 26 Or App 943, 946 , 554 P2d 524 (1976): "The ability of one to care for himself requires a finding of existing conditions.” A finding that a person is unable to provide for basic needs must be accompanied by a determination that the inability is due to a mental disorder.