State v. Martin, 417 P.3d 505

Defendant convicted of eight counts of felony public indecency after multiple drive‑through employees testified they saw a partially clothed white man masturbating in his car at their windows.
Seven female witnesses described similar encounters; some identified defendant in a photo array or in court; others could not identify anyone. One witness saw his photo in a news article before contacting police.
Police conducted “photo throw‑downs” with an admonishment and instructions to view all photos; the officer administering arrays was not connected to the case.
Before trial defendant requested a special jury instruction based on State v. Lawson/James listing factors (system and estimator variables) to evaluate eyewitness identifications; the trial court refused and gave only the standard instruction.
On appeal defendant argued the court erred by refusing his requested eyewitness‑identification instruction; the court reviewed whether his proposed instruction correctly stated the law and was supported by evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in refusing defendant’s proposed Lawson/James‑based eyewitness identification instruction	State argued no special instruction was needed; the uniform instruction sufficed	Defendant argued his proposed instruction correctly stated the law and should be given to guide the jury on estimator/system variables	Court held the proposed instruction was legally improper because it was not neutral: it cherry‑picked Lawson/James factors in a way that slanted the instruction toward defendant and could mislead the jury; refusal was not error

State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or. 724 (2012) (establishes system and estimator variables and the role of expert testimony and case‑specific instructions for eyewitness ID)
State v. McNally, 361 Or. 314 (2015–16) (defendant entitled to instructions that correctly state law and are supported by evidence)
State v. Marsh, 186 Or. App. 612 (2003) (standard of review for refusal to give requested instruction)
Williams v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 195 Or. 597 (1952) (instructions must be plain, neutral, and avoid misleading the jury)
St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Baughman, 61 Or. App. 534 (1983) (court may refuse instructions that destroy required neutral form)
State v. Francis, 284 Or. 621 (1978) (requested instruction must be given in the very terms proposed to be erroneous to require reversal)
Brooks v. Bergholm, 256 Or. 1 (1970) (instructions should not assume disputed facts)
State v. Rainey, 298 Or. 459 (1985) (advocate, not judge, should argue inferences)