519 P.3d 563
Or. Ct. App.2022Background
- Three consolidated criminal cases against Hatchell (assault, coercion, tampering, rape, strangulation, etc.); convictions originally affirmed by Court of Appeals and then vacated and remanded by the Oregon Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of recent decisions.
- Relevant charge (Case No. 17CR27612, Count 1): second-degree assault (domestic violence) alleging defendant “intentionally or knowingly caused serious physical injury” to the victim (K).
- Factual predicate: defendant repeatedly struck K and kicked her in/near the face while she was on the floor; K suffered an orbital blowout fracture, facial contusions, and required reconstructive surgery with lasting facial numbness.
- At trial defendant sought jury instructions requiring the jury to find he acted intentionally or knowingly as to the serious-physical-injury element; the trial court refused, relying on State v. Barnes, and did not give an instruction defining “assaultive in nature” or instructing on criminal negligence for the injury element.
- On remand from the Supreme Court (in light of State v. Owen and State v. McKinney/Shiffer), the Court of Appeals held the trial court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury that criminal negligence applies to the injury/result element of second-degree assault, that the error was not harmless given defendant’s defense (incidental shin contact), reversed that conviction, and remanded all three consolidated cases for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a culpable mental state must be instructed as to the serious-physical-injury element of second-degree assault | Barnes controlled such that no separate mental-state instruction for the injury element was required | Trial court should have instructed that the jury must find intentionally or knowingly caused serious physical injury; alternatively, at minimum criminal negligence applies to the injury element | Under Owen/McKinney-Shiffer, the court plainly erred by failing to instruct that criminal negligence applies to the injury element; reversed on that count |
| Whether the "knowingly" mental state applies to the injury/result element | State: "knowingly" does not apply to the injury element | Defendant: requested a "knowingly" instruction for the injury element | Court adhered to Owen’s rejection of applying "knowingly" to the injury element; no error in refusing the "knowingly" instruction |
| Whether the instructional error was harmless | State: error harmless because jury found defendant acted with awareness that conduct was assaultive | Defendant: not harmless because his defense was that injury resulted from incidental shin contact, so jury needed criminal-negligence instruction | Error was not harmless given the defense theory and lack of instruction defining risks; reversal required |
| Whether remand for resentencing is required for all consolidated cases | State: not directly argued or opposed | Defendant: remand sentencing for all cases because convictions were consolidated and sentencing was joint | Remand for resentencing on all three consolidated cases required (appellate reversal of at least one and affirmation of others) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Owen, 369 Or 288, 505 P.3d 953 (2022) (overruled Barnes in part; held injury in second-degree assault is a result element that at minimum requires criminal-negligence mental state and that courts must instruct on a culpable mental state for the injury element)
- State v. McKinney / Shiffer, 369 Or 325, 505 P.3d 946 (2022) (held failure to instruct on culpable mental state for injury element in assault was plain error)
- State v. Barnes, 329 Or 327, 986 P.2d 1160 (1999) (previously limited application of mental-state instructions to injury element; overruled in part by Owen)
- State v. Carlisle, 370 Or 137, 515 P.3d 867 (2022) (discussed holistic approach to whether a particular culpable mental state applies to an element)
- State v. Sheikh‑Nur, 285 Or App 529, 398 P.3d 472 (2017) (when multiple cases are tried together, reversal of one conviction can require resentencing on all consolidated cases)