State v. Naudain, 292 P.3d 623

Defendant was convicted by jury of two counts of aggravated murder for a 1998 SE Portland home-invasion robbery.
On appeal, defendant challenges a self-defense jury instruction as impermissible commentary on the evidence.
The instruction stated that an intruder is an initial aggressor and cannot claim self-defense unless withdraws, and expressly that defendant had not raised self-defense.
The trial court gave the instruction to clarify that defendant could not raise self-defense under the circumstances; the jury was not directed to specific facts.
The state’s case showed defendant shot H in the head during the raid; defendant claimed he panicked and did not feel threatened, while the state emphasized self-defense was not viable.
The court ultimately reversed and remanded, addressing only the self-defense instruction; suppression issue was denied without discussion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the self-defense instruction impermissible comment on the evidence?	State argues instruction clarified law and did not direct factual inferences.	Defendant contends instruction impermissibly commented on evidence by linking facts to self-defense ability.	Yes; instruction improperly commented on evidence.
Was the error preserved for review?	State contends preservation requirements were met; objection preserved.	Defendant objected as confusing and a misstatement, not as a comment on evidence.	Preserved; substantial objection and exceptions given.
Did the instruction prejudice the defendant under the totality of the instructions?	State asserts no prejudice because instruction told jurors defendant did not raise self-defense.	Instruction bolstered state's theory by signaling defendant could not rely on self-defense.	Yes; instruction prejudiced defendant.

State v. Hayward, 327 Or 397 (1998) (judge may not comment on evidence in jury instructions)
State v. Blanchard, 165 Or App 127 (2000) (comment on the evidence standard of review for jury instructions)
State v. Maciel-Cortes, 231 Or App 302 (2009) (impermissible comments on evidence under certain instructions)
Jett v. Ford Motor Co., 335 Or 493 (2003) (preservation via exception to jury instructions)
Delaney v. Taco Time Int’l., 297 Or 10 (1984) (purpose of exceptions to jury instructions)
State v. Brown, 310 Or 347 (1990) (examples of impermissible commentary on the evidence)
State v. Bowen, 340 Or 487 (2006) (jury instructions judged in light of whole charge)