State v. Poitra, 323 P.3d 563

Defendant attended a hearing in her son’s criminal case and caused a disturbance in the courtroom.
A deputy restrained defendant after she moved toward the door, and two deputies brought her to the ground, resulting in facial abrasions.
She was charged with second-degree disorderly conduct and resisting arrest; contempt of court was charged but later treated separately.
At trial, defendant argued self-defense with respect to the resisting arrest charge.
The trial court gave a self-defense instruction that included the peace officers’ state of mind, which defendant timely objected to as error under Oliphant.
The jury found defendant guilty on disorderly conduct and resisting arrest; she was sentenced on those counts; contempt was discharged on appeal but remains inferior to the principal issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the self-defense instruction was erroneous and prejudicial	Oliphant error; officer’s state of mind improperly considered	Instruction wrongly focused on officers’ state of mind, not defendant’s belief	Yes; instruction error and prejudice; reversible error.

State v. Oliphant, 347 Or 175 (Oregon 2009) (held that officer’s state of mind is not required in self-defense analysis; focus is on defendant’s belief)
State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614 (Oregon 2013) (rejected distinction based on Oliphant; instruction error analysis remains)
State v. Bassett, 234 Or App 259 (Or. App. 2010) (outlines two-part test for self-defense (defendant’s belief and degree of force))
State v. Pine, 336 Or 194 (Or. 2003) (reversible-error standard for jury instructions; probable effect on outcome)
State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248 (Or. 1999) (reversible error if instructions create erroneous impression of the law)
State v. Frey, 248 Or App 1 (Or. App. 2012) (standard for review of jury instructions for errors of law)