State v. Hooper, 300 P.3d 235

Defendant convicted of reckless driving (ORS 811.140) and reckless endangerment (ORS 163.195) after a jury trial.
Conduct occurred on I-5 during a Medford-to-Portland trip; witnesses Engles and Gilbert described aggressive driving and near-collisions.
Defendant, pro se, moved to change venue from Linn to Lane County; motion denied; trial held in Linn County.
Charging instrument alleged the crimes occurred in a vehicle in transit and that the vehicle passed through Linn County; venue contested.
During closing, defendant challenged the location for trial; the court interrupted and stated there was no issue as to venue.
Jury found defendant guilty on both counts; judgment entered; appeal followed challenging the closing argument and venue-related statements by the court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion limiting closing argument on venue	Hooper argues state venue proof was omitted	Hooper asserts venue argument should be allowed	No abuse; argument limit within court's discretion
Whether the court misstated the law or interfered with jury duty on venue	State asserts no issue; court impeded evidence	Hooper claims court misstated law and misled jury	No misstatement; jurors instructed on venue and elements; no prejudice

State v. Rogers, 330 Or 282 (2000) (trial court broad authority to control closing arguments; abuse requires error)
State v. Goodin, 8 Or App 15 (1971) (trial court’s control of proceedings generally broad; closing argument limits respected)
State v. Poole, 175 Or App 258 (2001) (jury decides if elements proved beyond reasonable doubt; court may not comment on evidence)
State v. Blanchard, 165 Or App 127 (2000) (court may not comment on evidence; improper commentary on evidence)
State v. Hayward, 327 Or 397 (1998) (court comments on how evidence relates to legal issues prohibited)
State v. Barone, 329 Or 210 (1999) (jurors presumed to follow instructions; no prejudice from nonbinding remarks)