State v. Skotland, 562 P.3d 1118

Defendant Jeffery Jerald Skotland was convicted of multiple offenses connected to his attempted purchase of a firearm, despite having two prior felony convictions in Washington State.
Skotland claimed he believed he could legally purchase a gun because he had filed expungement paperwork, but did not provide corroborating documents or the name of his attorney, citing privilege and a house fire.
During closing arguments, the prosecutor questioned the credibility of Skotland's story, noting the lack of documents and attorney identification.
Skotland appealed, arguing the prosecutor improperly shifted the burden of proof by commenting on his failure to provide evidence and that the trial court erred in denying a jury instruction on impossibility (i.e., believing he was not committing a crime).
The case returned to the Oregon Court of Appeals on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court to address whether errors were plain error and to address the instruction issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor's closing argument improperly shifted burden of proof	Comments were permissible challenges to credibility; not burden shifting	The prosecutor improperly suggested defendant had to provide evidence or witnesses	Not plain error; comments were not obviously improper
Denial of jury instruction on impossibility (mistake of fact as defense)	Any error in denying instruction was harmless; jury’s verdict shows they rejected defendant’s belief	Jury should have received impossibility instruction if defendant believed he could lawfully purchase firearm	Any error harmless; jury found defendant knowingly violated law

State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305 (plain error review for prosecutor’s statements; reversible only if statements so prejudicial as to deprive fair trial)
State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614 (plain error must be obvious, not reasonably in dispute, and apparent from the record)
State v. Mayo, 303 Or App 525 (prosecutor improperly shifted burden by highlighting defendant’s failure to call corroborating witnesses)
State v. Kerne, 289 Or App 345 (harmless error where jury’s verdict necessarily discredits defendant’s assertion)