State v. Roberts, 427 P.3d 1130

Defendant slapped his 3‑year‑old son once while both parents were high on meth; the child screamed and a red handprint/erythema appeared on his face the next day. Photos and nurse practitioner (Hansen) observations documented redness, some swelling, and broken superficial blood vessels; marks faded in 2–3 days and there was no evidence the child complained of ongoing pain.
State charged defendant with first‑degree criminal mistreatment and third‑degree assault (both requiring proof of “physical injury,” defined as impairment of condition or “substantial pain”), among other counts; jury convicted on mistreatment and assault counts.
Defendant requested a special jury instruction defining “substantial pain” to require both degree and duration and expressly to exclude “fleeting” pain; the court declined and gave only the statutory definition that physical injury includes pain that is “substantial.”
Defense presented expert Sheridan, who opined the mark was erythema (superficial redness) not a bruise and would not have caused substantial pain; State’s CARES nurse testified the injury was consistent with a slap and opined the force would have caused substantial pain.
On appeal defendant argued the court erred by refusing the requested instruction because (1) it correctly stated the law, (2) evidence supported a theory of only fleeting pain, and (3) omission was not harmless; the court of appeals agreed and reversed and remanded.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing defendant’s requested instruction that "substantial pain" excludes "fleeting" pain	The word "substantial" is common usage and jurors can understand it without further definition; the requested instruction merely restates synonyms	The requested instruction correctly states the law (degree and duration) and was supported by evidence that pain was only fleeting	Yes. The requested instruction correctly stated law (degree and duration) and was supported by evidence; court erred in refusing it
Whether the omitted instruction was unnecessary because existing instructions covered the issue	Existing statutory instruction (physical injury includes "substantial pain") was sufficient	The statutory instruction did not inform the jury that "substantial" includes a durational requirement (not fleeting)	The omission was not harmless; reversal required because jurors likely would not infer the durational component

State v. Long, 286 Or. App. 334 (discusses that "substantial pain" refers to both degree and duration)
State v. Guzman, 276 Or. App. 208 (emphasizes that fleeting pain is insufficient for "substantial pain")
State v. Capwell, 52 Or. App. 43 (originally recognized that mere momentary pain may be insufficient)
State v. McNally, 361 Or. 314 (standard of review for refusal to give requested instruction)
State v. Tucker, 315 Or. 321 (trial court need not give requested instruction if substance covered by instructions given)
State v. Montez, 309 Or. 564 (no error refusing instruction that added nothing to those given)
State v. Guckert, 260 Or. App. 50 (prejudice/harm analysis for instructional error)