State v. Craigen
296 Or. App. 772
Or. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant shot his neighbor, was convicted of murder, and raised guilty except for insanity (GEI) and extreme emotional disturbance (EED) defenses.
- Defendant sought to introduce expert testimony that he suffered Axis I depression and organic brain injury that impaired executive function (judgment, impulsivity, emotional processing).
- The state moved in limine to exclude that evidence as irrelevant to EED, arguing it amounted to inadmissible "personality traits" under State v. Ott.
- The trial court excluded evidence of the diagnoses and their listed symptoms as not part of the defendant’s "situation" for EED and as personality traits.
- After oral argument in this appeal, this court decided State v. Zielinski, which held certain Axis I disorders may be admissible as a defendant’s "situation" for EED. The state asked for reconsideration to clarify unaddressed supplemental assignments of error.
- On reconsideration this court held the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the depression and brain injury as part of the defendant’s "situation," but correctly excluded evidence that the conditions produced impulsivity, impaired judgment, and emotional lability as inadmissible personality characteristics on this record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence of Axis I depression is admissible as part of defendant’s "situation" for EED | State: Axis I disorder here is like a personality trait and inadmissible under Ott | Defendant: Axis I depression is like the anxiety disorder in Zielinski and relevant to "situation" | Court: Exclusion of Axis I depression was error under Zielinski; it may be considered on remand |
| Whether evidence of organic brain injury is admissible as part of "situation" for EED | State: Brain‑injury effects equate to personality traits or are otherwise inadmissible | Defendant: Brain injury is a physical impairment and a personal characteristic relevant to "situation" | Court: Exclusion of brain injury was error; physical brain injury fits within "personal characteristics" and is admissible |
| Whether evidence that the conditions caused impulsivity, impaired judgment, and emotional lability is admissible | State: Those symptoms are personality characteristics and inadmissible for EED | Defendant: Those symptoms show how conditions affected his emotional state and thus are relevant | Court: Trial court correctly excluded those symptom‑based traits on this record as personality characteristics; they do not demonstrate the concrete emotional experience required by Zielinski |
| Whether defendant preserved claim re: Othello (delusional) syndrome for EED | State: Not preserved / invited error because defendant treated delusions as GEI evidence | Defendant: Sought admission of Othello syndrome evidence for EED in supplemental brief | Court: Not preserved/invited; trial court wasn’t on notice defendant sought to use delusions for EED, so claim not reviewed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Zielinski, 287 Or. App. 770, 404 P.3d 972 (Or. App. 2017) (Axis I disorders can be personal characteristics relevant to EED if tied to the defendant’s emotional experience)
- State v. Ott, 297 Or. 375, 686 P.2d 1001 (Or. 1984) (evidence of personality traits is not admissible to show defendant’s "situation" for EED)
- State v. Craigen, 295 Or. App. 17, 432 P.3d 274 (Or. App. 2018) (opinion modified on reconsideration; remanded for new trial on murder charge and clarified admissibility rulings as set out above)