State v. Solis, 530 P.3d 537

Defendant convicted by jury of eight counts of first‑degree sexual abuse and one count of third‑degree rape; convictions based largely on multiple statements by defendant to investigators characterized as confessions.
Alleged offenses occurred over ~4 years beginning when victim was ~7 and defendant ~13.
Defense theory: defendant’s statements were false confessions caused by acquiescence to leading detective questioning; defense argued false confessions occur for various nonculpable reasons.
In rebuttal, prosecutor attacked the false‑confession theory, asking “What evidence…that this is a false?” and repeatedly asserted there was “zero evidence” offered by defendant, implying defendant bore the burden to produce evidence of falsity.
Defense objected multiple times and requested a curative instruction; the trial court overruled objections and denied the requested instruction.
The Court of Appeals held the prosecutor’s comments improperly shifted the burden of proof, the trial court abused its discretion in not correcting that error, the error was not harmless, and reversed and remanded the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor’s rebuttal improperly shifted the burden by saying defendant needed to present evidence that his confessions were false	Prosecutor argued it was fair rebuttal to note absence of evidence supporting defense theory and reiterated state’s burden to prove guilt	Prosecutor’s remarks told jury defendant had to produce evidence of falsity, impermissibly shifting burden off the State	Prosecutor’s statements were improper; they suggested defendant bore burden to prove his confessions false and distorted the burden of proof
Whether the trial court’s overruling of objections and refusal to give a curative instruction was harmless error	State argued generic jury instructions that the State must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt sufficed to cure any comment	Defense argued generic instructions did not dispel the specific burden‑shifting implication and denial of curative instruction denied a fair trial	Generic instructions did not cure the misstatement; court abused discretion and error was not harmless; reversal and remand required

State v. Totland, 296 Or. App. 527 (2019) (describing abuse of discretion standard for trial court rulings)
State v. Mayo, 303 Or. App. 525 (2020) (generic burden‑of‑proof instructions may not cure specific misstatements that suggest defendant must produce corroborating evidence)
State v. Chitwood, 370 Or. 305 (2022) (review standard and trial court obligations when responding to objections to improper prosecutorial argument)
State v. Davis, 336 Or. 19 (2003) (harmless‑error standard under Oregon Constitution)