State v. Brown, 536 P.3d 1069

Defendant and victim had a brief verbal encounter on a wooded path; doorbell video and audio captured portions showing the victim yelling and following defendant, and three gunshots that killed the victim.
Defendant admitted to shooting the victim, said the victim advanced aggressively, and stated he was high on methamphetamine; he asserted self-defense under ORS 161.209.
The state charged defendant with murder and felon in possession; the jury acquitted on murder but convicted of first‑degree manslaughter (lesser‑included) and felon in possession.
Before closing, the prosecutor announced she would argue the "initial aggressor" limitation to self‑defense (ORS 161.215); the court instructed on self‑defense and the deadly‑force limitation but did not give an initial‑aggressor instruction. Defense counsel did not request one.
In closing the prosecutor argued defendant was the initial aggressor; defense argued the state bore the burden to prove aggressor status. On appeal defendant contended the omission was plain error.
The Court of Appeals held the trial court plainly erred by omitting the initial‑aggressor instruction when the state relied on it, found the error not harmless, exercised its discretion to correct the error, reversed the manslaughter conviction and remanded for resentencing; other convictions were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failing to instruct on the initial‑aggressor limitation to self‑defense was plain error	Not obvious that failure to give limitation instruction is plain error; trial court’s omission not necessarily plain	Failure was plain error because the state invoked the limitation and it was the state’s duty to request the instruction	Yes — omission was obvious legal error; court erred by not instructing when state relied on the limitation
Whether the error was harmless and whether appellate court should exercise discretion to correct it	(No meaningful harmlessness argument in record)	Error was not harmless because prosecutor misstated the law and evidence could support withdrawal/retreat; appellate correction warranted	Error was not harmless; court exercised discretion to correct plain error, reversed manslaughter conviction and remanded for resentencing

State v. Freeman, 109 Or App 472 (1991) (if state asserts an ORS 161.215 limitation to disprove self‑defense, state must request corresponding jury instruction)
State v. Abram, 273 Or App 449 (2015) (state bears burden to disprove self‑defense once raised)
State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614 (2013) (plain‑error review elements: legal error that is obvious, not reasonably in dispute, and apparent on record)
State v. McKinney/Shiffer, 369 Or 325 (2022) (appellate discretion to correct plain error must be exercised with utmost caution)
State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305 (2022) (appellate courts decline to correct plain error when defendant invited or encouraged the error)
State v. Davis, 336 Or 19 (2003) (harmless‑error analysis focuses on likelihood that error affected the verdict)