State v. Hooper, 487 P.3d 428

Victim (L) was 14; defendant Hooper was her stepfather. The charged conduct occurred in late 2015.
On the night in question Hooper had been drinking (≈10 beers). He directed L into a horse trailer, followed her inside, removed pants, put on a condom, and had sexual intercourse with L.
L later disclosed the conduct to her mother (Hooper). Hooper confronted defendant; defendant initially denied, but later told his wife he had been "drunk" and "woke up in a drunken stupor having sex with [L]."
Defendant was indicted on five counts of first‑degree rape; the jury convicted on Count 1 (late 2015) and acquitted on Counts 2–5.
At trial the court’s oral and written instructions: a general definition of first‑degree rape used the word "knowingly," but the specific itemized elements the jury was told to find omitted any mens rea (no reference to "knowingly"). Defendant did not object to the instruction.
On appeal Hooper argued plain error from the omitted mens rea; the state argued the instructions as a whole cured any error and that any error was harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether omission of a culpable mental state ("knowingly") from the itemized elements was plain error	Instructions as a whole were correct because the general definition included "knowingly"; no obvious error	Omission was obvious plain error because mens rea is an essential element and the itemized elements omitted it	Court: Plain error — omission of "knowingly" from the elements instruction was obvious error
Whether any instructional error was harmless	Verdict credited L’s testimony; jury necessarily rejected defendant’s "it didn’t happen" defense, so error harmless	Mens rea was contested (defendant’s alleged drunken stupor/confession); jury could have believed intercourse occurred but not that it was "knowing"	Court: Not harmless — mens rea was in dispute, so omission could have affected the verdict
Whether appellate court should exercise discretion to correct plain error	State urged not to correct because instructions as a whole were sufficient and suggested possible strategic failure to object	Error was harmful and the conviction is a serious felony; discretion to correct should be exercised	Court: Exercised discretion to correct plain error; reversed and remanded Count 1
Whether to review nonunanimous‑jury instruction (Ramos issue)	State argued no review or harmless	Defendant sought review	Court: Declined plain‑error review of nonunanimous instruction (preservation and procedural‑fairness concerns)

State v. Gray, 261 Or App 121 (discusses plain‑error review for omitted mens rea in jury instructions)
State v. Ramoz, 367 Or 670 (Oreg. 2021) (similar instructional omission; error likely affected verdict when mens rea was contested)
State v. Gaines, 275 Or App 736 (discusses appellate standard viewing evidence in light most favorable to the state)
Williams v. Portland Gen. Elec., 195 Or 597 (1952) (instructions must not mislead or confuse jurors)