State v. Paul
289 Or. App. 408, 410 P.3d 378 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on an affirmative defense if there is any evidence in the record from which a jury could infer the required elements of the defense. A trial court errs by refusing to give such an instruction based on its own assessment of the evidence's credibility.
Facts:
- While defendant was dropping off his girlfriend, her mother (codefendant) and her uncle approached his car.
- The uncle told defendant, 'No, you will give [the mother] a ride if you don't want anything to happen to your daughter.'
- Defendant knew that his girlfriend had met his daughter and that the mother knew where he lived.
- Defendant complied, driving the mother to a rural location where she instructed him to park and wait.
- After about 20 minutes, the mother returned and directed defendant to follow her to a nearby residence.
- Defendant waited outside the residence for approximately an hour.
- The mother then ran out of the house, shoved jewelry into defendant's hands, and told him, 'Let's go.'
- Defendant ran in a different direction from the mother, losing a shoe and hiding behind a pile of cut trees on the property before being found by police.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was charged in an Oregon trial court with burglary in the first degree, burglary in the second degree, and theft in the third degree.
- At the conclusion of his trial, defendant requested jury instructions on the affirmative defenses of choice-of-evils and duress.
- The trial court refused to give the instructions, ruling that it did not find the defendant's testimony regarding the threats to be credible.
- The jury convicted the defendant on all counts.
- Defendant appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Oregon, arguing that the trial court's refusal to give the requested jury instructions was legal error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err by refusing to give a defendant's requested jury instructions on the defenses of choice-of-evils and duress when the defendant has presented some evidence of a threat to a third party, even if the trial court finds that evidence not credible?
Opinions:
Majority - James, J.
Yes. A trial court errs by refusing to give requested jury instructions on the defenses of choice-of-evils and duress when the defendant has presented evidence from which a jury could infer the necessary elements of those defenses. The standard for giving an instruction requires only that there is 'any evidence' in the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, supporting the defense. The trial court's role is not to weigh the credibility of that evidence, as that function belongs exclusively to the jury. Here, the defendant testified that he was threatened, feared for his daughter's safety, had no means to contact her, and immediately told the arresting officer about the coercion and his concern for his daughter. This constitutes sufficient evidence for a jury to infer that the threat was imminent and that his actions were necessary to avoid harm to his daughter. Therefore, the trial court improperly usurped the jury's role by deeming the defendant's testimony not credible and refusing the instructions.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the division of labor between the judge and the jury, clarifying that the trial judge's role in considering a requested jury instruction is limited to determining the legal sufficiency of the evidence, not its weight or credibility. The court's analysis of the 'imminence' element for duress and choice-of-evils defenses confirms that the threat must exist at the time of the offense, even if the threatened harm is to a third party in a different location. This precedent makes it easier for defendants to present affirmative defenses to a jury, as they only need to meet a low evidentiary threshold to have the instruction given, thereby protecting the right to present a complete defense.
