criminal negligence standard (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

criminal negligence standard in Oregon

8 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2026 5 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Owengreen
or · 2022 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023See State v. Tow, 321 Or App 294, 299 , 515 P3d 936 (2022) (declining to decide which mental state applies); see also Owen, 369 Or at 322-24 (applying a criminal negligence standard for the injury element). 6 ORS 811.540 provides, in part: “(1) A person commits the crime of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer if: “(a) The person is operating a motor vehicle; and “(b) A police officer who is in uniform and prominently displaying the police officer’s badge of office or operating a vehicle appropriately marked showing it to be an official police vehicle gives a visual or audible signa

2023See State v. Owen, 369 Or 288 , 505 P3d 953 (2022) (applying a criminal negligence standard for the injury element of second-degree assault). 4 Cf. ORS 19.415(2) (no judgment shall be reversed, “except for error substan- tially affecting the rights of a party”).

22
State v. Hortongreen
orctapp · 2023 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026See id. at 262 (recognizing that a criminal conviction cannot be reversed based on harmless error, i.e., when there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict).

11
State v. Towgreen
orctapp · 2022 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023See State v. Tow, 321 Or App 294, 299 , 515 P3d 936 (2022) (declining to decide which mental state applies); see also Owen, 369 Or at 322-24 (applying a criminal negligence standard for the injury element). 6 ORS 811.540 provides, in part: “(1) A person commits the crime of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer if: “(a) The person is operating a motor vehicle; and “(b) A police officer who is in uniform and prominently displaying the police officer’s badge of office or operating a vehicle appropriately marked showing it to be an official police vehicle gives a visual or audible signa

2023See State v. Tow, 321 Or App 294, 299 , 515 P3d 936 (2022) (declining to decide which mental state applies); see also Owen, 369 Or at 322-24 (applying a criminal negligence standard for the injury element). 6 ORS 811.540 provides, in part: “(1) A person commits the crime of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer if: “(a) The person is operating a motor vehicle; and “(b) A police officer who is in uniform and prominently displaying the police officer’s badge of office or operating a vehicle appropriately marked showing it to be an official police vehicle gives a visual or audible signa

11
State v. Shedrickgreen
or · 2022 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023See State v. Shedrick, 370 Or 255, 271 , 518 P3d 559 (2022) (concluding that the omission of a criminal negligence instruction with respect to the value of stolen property was harmless because there was little Nonprecedential Memo Op: 325 Or App 215 (2023) 219 likelihood that the jury would not have concluded that there was a substantial risk that “a sizeable bundle of cash” for refilling an ATM “was worth a significant amount”); State v. Scatamacchia, 323 Or App 31, 35 , 522 P3d 26 (2022) (error was harmless because there was little likelihood that the jury would not have found that there was

2023See State v. Shedrick, 370 Or 255, 271 , 518 P3d 559 (2022) (concluding that the omission of a criminal negligence instruction with respect to the value of stolen property was harmless because there was little Nonprecedential Memo Op: 325 Or App 215 (2023) 219 likelihood that the jury would not have concluded that there was a substantial risk that “a sizeable bundle of cash” for refilling an ATM “was worth a significant amount”); State v. Scatamacchia, 323 Or App 31, 35 , 522 P3d 26 (2022) (error was harmless because there was little likelihood that the jury would not have found that there was

11
State v. Davisgreen
orctapp · 2014 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See State v. Davis, 265 Or App 179, 183-84 , 335 P3d 1266 (2014) (concluding that the defendant preserved his argument that a jury instruction violated the state and federal constitutions, because, even though he did not cite the specific constitutional provisions at issue, his exception to the instructions sufficiently communicated that those provisions were the basis for his objection); see also State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614 , 632 n 11, 317 P3d 889 (2013) (“[T]he terms of a requested, but refused, instruction may sometimes go a long way to putting a trial court on notice of the deficiency in

2015See State v. Davis, 265 Or App 179, 183-84 , 335 P3d 1266 (2014) (concluding that the defendant preserved his argument that a jury instruction violated the state and federal constitutions, because, even though he did not cite the specific constitutional provisions at issue, his exception to the instructions sufficiently communicated that those provisions were the basis for his objection); see also State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614 , 632 n 11, 317 P3d 889 (2013) (“[T]he terms of a requested, but refused, instruction may sometimes go a long way to putting a trial court on notice of the deficiency in

11
State v. Vanornumgreen
or · 2013 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See State v. Davis, 265 Or App 179, 183-84 , 335 P3d 1266 (2014) (concluding that the defendant preserved his argument that a jury instruction violated the state and federal constitutions, because, even though he did not cite the specific constitutional provisions at issue, his exception to the instructions sufficiently communicated that those provisions were the basis for his objection); see also State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614 , 632 n 11, 317 P3d 889 (2013) (“[T]he terms of a requested, but refused, instruction may sometimes go a long way to putting a trial court on notice of the deficiency in

2015See State v. Davis, 265 Or App 179, 183-84 , 335 P3d 1266 (2014) (concluding that the defendant preserved his argument that a jury instruction violated the state and federal constitutions, because, even though he did not cite the specific constitutional provisions at issue, his exception to the instructions sufficiently communicated that those provisions were the basis for his objection); see also State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614 , 632 n 11, 317 P3d 889 (2013) (“[T]he terms of a requested, but refused, instruction may sometimes go a long way to putting a trial court on notice of the deficiency in

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Efimoff green
orctapp · 2026
1 sentence

2026Cite as 346 Or App 402 (2026) 413 See id. at 262 (recognizing that a criminal conviction cannot be reversed based on harmless error, i.e., when there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict).

12026–2026
State v. Scatamacchia green
orctapp · 2022
2 sentences

2023See State v. Shedrick, 370 Or 255, 271 , 518 P3d 559 (2022) (concluding that the omission of a criminal negligence instruction with respect to the value of stolen property was harmless because there was little Nonprecedential Memo Op: 325 Or App 215 (2023) 219 likelihood that the jury would not have concluded that there was a substantial risk that “a sizeable bundle of cash” for refilling an ATM “was worth a significant amount”); State v. Scatamacchia, 323 Or App 31, 35 , 522 P3d 26 (2022) (error was harmless because there was little likelihood that the jury would not have found that there was

2023See State v. Shedrick, 370 Or 255, 271 , 518 P3d 559 (2022) (concluding that the omission of a criminal negligence instruction with respect to the value of stolen property was harmless because there was little Nonprecedential Memo Op: 325 Or App 215 (2023) 219 likelihood that the jury would not have concluded that there was a substantial risk that “a sizeable bundle of cash” for refilling an ATM “was worth a significant amount”); State v. Scatamacchia, 323 Or App 31, 35 , 522 P3d 26 (2022) (error was harmless because there was little likelihood that the jury would not have found that there was

12023–2023
State v. Parham neutral
orctapp · 2023
1 sentence

2023See State v. Shedrick, 370 Or 255, 271 , 518 P3d 559 (2022) (concluding that the omission of a criminal negligence instruction with respect to the value of stolen property was harmless because there was little Nonprecedential Memo Op: 325 Or App 215 (2023) 219 likelihood that the jury would not have concluded that there was a substantial risk that “a sizeable bundle of cash” for refilling an ATM “was worth a significant amount”); State v. Scatamacchia, 323 Or App 31, 35 , 522 P3d 26 (2022) (error was harmless because there was little likelihood that the jury would not have found that there was

12023–2023
State v. Higgins neutral
orctapp · 2023
1 sentence

2023Nonprecedential Memo Op: 329 Or App 309 (2023) 313 the court given the “criminal negligence” instruction that defendant proposes.

12023–2023
State v. Teagues green
orctapp · 2016
2 sentences

2023“A trial court’s erroneous failure to give a concur- rence instruction is not harmless when, given the evidence and the parties’ theories, jurors could have based their ver- dicts on different occurrences.” State v. Teagues, 281 Or App 182, 194 , 383 P3d 320 (2016) (citations omitted).

2023“A trial court’s erroneous failure to give a concur- rence instruction is not harmless when, given the evidence and the parties’ theories, jurors could have based their ver- dicts on different occurrences.” State v. Teagues, 281 Or App 182, 194 , 383 P3d 320 (2016) (citations omitted).

12023–2023
State v. Mills green
orctapp · 1981
2 sentences

1988State v. Mills, supra, 52 Or App at 783 . 2 Defendant father also assigns as error that the trial court admitted a portion of a tape-recorded statement by mother in which she stated that she was aware that drinking urine could be hazardous to the children’s health: Q: “Wouldn’t you agree that’s kind of a dangerous situation if a kid were to get to that [can of urine] and drink it?” A: “Yes, we uh, we uhm, we knew it * * *.” He argues that the testimony could not be admitted because the mother was not an expert.

1988State v. Mills, supra, 52 Or.

11988–1988
Watzig v. Tobin green
or · 1982
1 sentence

1983Res ipsa loquitur was applicable.” 292 Or at 652 .

11983–1983

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.085 (6) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.095 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.187 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 39 (1986–2026) NM 26 (1993–2024) PA 9 (2010–2020) OR 8 (1983–2026) ID 4 (1990–2025) IL 4 (2020–2021) WA 2 (2014–2024) NV 2 (2016–2016) VT 2 (1995–2012)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check