State v. McPhail
359 P.3d 325
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant is an inmate at TRCI; he possessed a sharpened toothbrush handle and was charged under ORS 166.275.
- Pretrial, defendant sought to rely on self-defense and choice of evils; the State moved in limine to bar those defenses.
- At a 104.3 hearing, five TRCI inmates testified about gang dynamics, housing, and threats to defendant.
- The State argued no imminent threat existed and defenses were inapplicable; the court granted the motions in limine and did not allow jury instructions on the defenses.
- Defendant appealed arguing error in preclusion of defenses and lack of jury instructions; the court affirmed, ruling no evidence supported imminence for either defense.
- The opinion explains the imminence requirement for the defenses, and notes the statutory definitions of choice of evils (ORS 161.200) and self-defense (ORS 161.209).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting the State’s in limine motion | Miles argues defenses were supported by evidence | Defendant claims sufficient evidence supported defenses | No error; defenses not supported by imminent threat evidence |
| Whether there was sufficient imminent threat to support choice of evils | Defendant contends imminent threat existed | Threats were specific and imminent | Imminence not shown; choice of evils not available |
| Whether there was sufficient imminent threat to support self-defense | Defendant contends self-defense applicable | Defendant needed imminent harm to justify force | Imminence not shown; self-defense not applicable |
| Whether the jury could have been instructed on a verdict by 10 of 12 jurors | Defendant contends improper instruction | (Not detailed in record) | Rejection of error; Cobb controls |
| Whether the trial court erred by not instructing on self-defense due to Beisser rationale | Defense could be available under Beisser framework | No charge involving force against another; Beisser inapplicable | Not error; self-defense not applicable where no force against another charged |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Boldt, 116 Or App 480 (Or. App. 1992) (imminent threat required for choice-of-evils)
- State v. Taylor, 123 Or App 343 (Or. App. 1993) (imminent threat supports self-defense/choice of evils defense)
- State v. Seamons, 170 Or App 582 (Or. App. 2000) (no imminent threat; in limine proper)
- State v. Freih, 270 Or App 555 (Or. App. 2015) (necessity to avoid threatened injury requires no reasonable alternatives)
- State v. Miles, 197 Or App 86 (Or. App. 2005) (evidence standard for presenting defenses; review benevolent to defendant)
- State v. Marsh, 186 Or App 612 (Or. App. 2003) (screening function for choice of evils; send to jury if evidence supports)