State v. Chemxananou, 510 P.3d 954

Defendant Ethan Chemxananou was convicted of four counts of first-degree criminal mistreatment for separate incidents involving two children: K (kicking and throat-squeezing until unconscious) and N (being struck with a plate and punched, causing a deviated septum).
Defendant denied some incidents, claimed the punch was accidental, and argued the family fabricated allegations after he left the household.
At trial, K, N, and the mother (Applegate) testified; N and Applegate acknowledged earlier inconsistent statements to police (they told police the punch was accidental) but testified at trial that the actions were intentional.
Defense requested a jury instruction under ORS 10.095(3) (witness false in part) because of those inconsistencies; the trial court refused.
Trial court instructed the jury using the Barnes formulation that “knowingly caused physical injury” means awareness that conduct was assaultive; after trial the Oregon Supreme Court decided Owen, holding the result element requires at least criminal negligence.
On appeal, defendant argued the refusal to give the witness-false-in-part instruction was error and that omission of a criminal-negligence instruction as to the injury/result element was plain error; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing a witness-false-in-part instruction	Instruction not necessary or did not affect verdict	Trial court should have instructed that a witness false in one part may be distrusted in others given inconsistent police statements	Court agreed the refusal was error but found it harmless because the verdict showed the jury believed trial testimony over police statements
Whether omitting a culpable mental state (criminal negligence) for causing physical injury was plain error	No need to correct because error (if any) was harmless and would not affect verdict	Owen requires instructing that result element carries at least criminal negligence; omission is plain error and should be corrected	Court assumed plain error but declined to exercise discretion to correct it because the guilty verdict (finding defendant aware his conduct was assaultive) made any error harmless

State v. Payne, 366 Or 588 (describing when witness-false-in-part instruction is appropriate)
State v. Owen, 369 Or 288 (holding result element requires at least criminal negligence)
State v. Labossiere, 307 Or App 560 (finding failure to give witness-false-in-part instruction harmless where verdict indicated the witness was believed)
State v. Barnes, 329 Or 327 (former articulation that "knowingly" meant awareness that conduct was assaultive)
State v. English, 269 Or App 395 (applied Barnes formulation to criminal mistreatment)
State v. McKinney/Shiffer, 369 Or 325 (applied Owen to reverse convictions using Barnes formulation)
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 (discussing discretionary correction of plain error)
State v. Ross, 271 Or App 1 (declining to correct error as likely harmless)
State v. Longjaw, 318 Or App 487 (declining to exercise discretion to correct plain error when verdict could not plausibly have been influenced)