337 P.3d 186
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant convicted after a bench trial of multiple offenses arising from incidents with his girlfriend, the victim.
- Defendant appeals challenging witness tampering and second-degree domestic-violence assault, plus sentence.
- For witness tampering, defendant allegedly induced the victim to be absent from an official proceeding; the victim was not shown to have been summoned for a grand jury.
- The trial court and defense counsel discussed a general judgment of acquittal motion, but the record shows no specific theory preserving insufficiency on witness tampering.
- The court found preservation deficient and declined to correct plain error without timely preservation; it noted the state could have remedied the error if raised.
- As to second-degree assault, the record shows defendant pressed a lit cigarette against the victim’s cheek, producing a scar and blister months later; issue concerns whether this could constitute a dangerous weapon causing serious injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation and plain-error review for witness tampering | Duncan | Duncan contends the evidence was insufficient | No preservation; not plain error to correct |
| Sufficiency of evidence for second-degree assault as domestic violence | Duncan | Duncan argues no substantial risk of serious injury | No plain error; record supports verdict under Glazier standard |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barboe, 253 Or App 367 (2012) (evidence review when convicting on appeal; standard on preserved issues)
- State v. Pervish, 202 Or App 442 (2005) (tampering requires post-subpoena proof; reversal/flat error context)
- State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516 (2012) (exercise discretion to correct unpreserved error in limited circumstances)
- State v. Paragon, 195 Or App 265 (2004) (motion for judgment of acquittal must state specific theory)
- State v. Schodrow, 187 Or App 224 (2003) (general motion preserves no theory of insufficiency)
- State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183 (1988) (preservation to ensure fairness and response opportunity)
- Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 (1991) (ends of justice and preservation in unpreserved error)
