273 P.3d 370
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Durst collided with a van on a road around a mall parking lot; he fled the scene after the collision.
- The victim located Durst, asked his name, and Durst rode toward him with a knife exposed; the victim was injured in a subsequent collision.
- Durst was charged with unlawful use of a weapon, menacing, and assault in the fourth degree; a jury trial followed.
- Durst proposed jury instructions defining intentionality as to conduct and/or results; the court instead gave a general definition of intentionality and stated elements for each offense.
- The jury found Durst guilty on all counts; on appeal, Durst challenged the adequacy of the mental-state instructions under Crosby and related line of cases.
- The court held that, for menacing, the mental state must relate to both conduct and a result; the instructions were not error; Crosby did not require more specific tailoring.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does menacing require intent as to both conduct and result? | Durst argued Crosby controls; required intent only to engage in conduct, not result. | Durst contends the jury should be instructed to link intent to a specific conduct and to a specific result. | Yes; the statute requires intent to both conduct and result. |
| Were the jury instructions about 'intentionally' correct and sufficient? | State contends general 'intentionally' instruction suffices under Woodman. | Durst argues the court should tailor the instruction to link to each offense's elements as Crosby suggests. | Instructions were correct and not reversible error; Woodman supports the general instruction. |
| Did Crosby require tailored mental-state instructions for these offenses? | Pedersen rejects a universal requirement for tailored instructions under Crosby. | Durst relied on Crosby to require tailored definitions. | Crosby did not require tailored instructions in this context; Pedersen governs here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crosby v. State, 342 Or. 419 (Or. 2007) (redefines link between mental state and offense; caution against generic instructions)
- Woodman v. State, 341 Or. 105 (Or. 2006) (affirmed use of combined conduct/result mental-state instruction when appropriate)
- Pedersen v. State, 242 Or. App. 305 (Or. App. 2011) (rejects requirement of tailored instructions for Crosby in all cases)
- Wallach v. Allstate Ins. Co., 344 Or. 314 (Or. 2008) (presumes jury follows trial court instructions)