State v. Haws, 444 P.3d 1125

Defendant and victim engaged in a domestic dispute during which defendant grabbed/shook the victim, struck her head, and a screwdriver from his pocket contacted her abdomen; witnesses described choking, hitting, and a screwdriver push; child witnessed incident.
Victim obtained a restraining order the next day (later dismissed) and reported throat soreness, rating pain 2 the night of and 6 the next day; at trial she downplayed injuries and contradicted earlier statements.
State presented witness descriptions, police testimony, photographs of bruising/red marks, a restraining-order petition, and communications between the parties; defendant presented no testimony or evidence but argued at closing that the conduct produced only a slap or fleeting pain.
Defendant was convicted of, inter alia, fourth-degree assault (domestic violence) and first-degree burglary (domestic violence), the latter predicated on intent to commit assault.
Defendant requested a special jury instruction defining "substantial pain" to include a durational element (excluding "fleeting" pain); the trial court refused and used the uniform instruction defining "physical injury" as an injury that impairs condition or causes "substantial pain."
On appeal the court found instructional error as to the durational component of "substantial pain," reversed the assault and burglary convictions and remanded for resentencing; other claims were rejected without discussion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing defendant's requested instruction that "substantial pain" excludes fleeting pain	Instruction unnecessary because evidence did not present a duration question and uniform instruction sufficed	Requested instruction correctly stated law and was required because evidence supported inference pain was only fleeting	Reversed: court erred; defendant entitled to instruction that substantial pain includes a durational component (not fleeting)
Whether instructional error was harmless	Any error harmless because evidence of persistent/worsening neck pain made substantial pain unavoidable; defendant failed to present theory of fleeting pain	Error was prejudicial because record contained evidence supporting transient pain and jury may have convicted on conduct causing fleeting pain	Not harmless: error could have affected verdict on assault; reversal required
Effect of assault instruction error on burglary conviction	N/A (state implicitly argued burglary unaffected)	A finding that pain was only fleeting could negate intent to commit assault and thus affect burglary verdict	Burglary conviction reversed as dependent on assault finding
Whether jurors may return nonunanimous verdicts (raised in supplemental brief)	Federal Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require unanimity	No reversible error	Rejected on the merits (no further discussion)

State v. Roberts, 293 Or. App. 340 (defendant entitled to instruction that fleeting pain is insufficient for "substantial pain")
State v. Long, 286 Or. App. 334 (discusses meaning of "substantial" in physical-injury context)
State v. Guzman, 276 Or. App. 208 (same issue: degree and duration as components of substantial pain)
State v. Davis, 336 Or. 19 (harmless-error standard for instructional errors under Oregon Constitution)
State v. Egeland, 260 Or. App. 741 (standard for reviewing refusal to give requested instruction)
State v. Johnson, 275 Or. App. 468 (evidence of a transient "sting" from a slap insufficient to prove substantial pain)