477 P.3d 1
Or. Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendant Labossiere lived with girlfriend S and elderly K; K kept a baseball bat at the door for protection.
- An altercation in defendant’s room led to defendant returning to the living room wielding a wooden mop/broom handle; K called out about a bat and defendant picked up K’s bat and approached S.
- S gave inconsistent accounts: initial police statement (that defendant swung a bat), a later police statement (that he swung a wooden stick), and trial testimony (that he swung a bat).
- Police arrested defendant after a short struggle; defendant was tried on multiple counts and convicted of unlawful use of a weapon (UUW) as to S and resisting arrest; acquitted on other counts.
- At trial, defendant requested the uniform witness-false-in-part instruction (UCrJI 1029); the court denied the request, concluding testimonial inconsistencies did not show willful perjury.
- On appeal defendant argued the refusal was error and prejudicial because the UUW indictment expressly alleged a bat; the Court of Appeals assumed arguendo error but held any error harmless and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in refusing the witness-false-in-part instruction and, if so, whether the error was prejudicial | State: S’s testimony did not permit a reasonable inference of conscious falsehood; no instruction required | Labossiere: S’s inconsistent statements about whether defendant swung a bat or a stick supported instruction; refusal prejudiced the UUW verdict tied to a bat | Even assuming error in refusing the instruction, any error was harmless — conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Payne, 366 Or 588 (discusses when witness-false-in-part instruction is required and analyzes prejudice/harmlessness)
- Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 365 Or 196 (standard for reviewing requested jury instructions)
- State v. Walker, 291 Or App 188 (inconsistencies often reflect mistake or confusion, not deliberate falsehood)
- State v. Ashkins, 357 Or 642 (consider instructions as a whole and the trial record when assessing prejudice)
- State v. Davis, 336 Or 19 (harmless-error standard under Oregon Constitution)
- State v. Simon, 294 Or App 840 (defendant bears burden to show that an error was not harmless)