State v. Vanornum
317 P.3d 889
| Or. | 2013Background
- Defendant convicted of resisting arrest after self-defense defense at trial; no objections to most jury instructions, but requested a specific instruction on 'unreasonable physical force' that trial court declined.
- Oliphant (2009) held UCrJI 1227 is not a correct statement of arrestee self-defense, focusing on officer belief rather than arrestee belief.
- Court of Appeals relied on ORCP 59 H to bar review of instructional error absent specific preservation, including plain-error review.
- Oregon Supreme Court held ORCP 59 H does not govern appellate preservation for instructional error or plain-error review; rule applies to trial preservation only.
- Remanded to Court of Appeals to address whether the UCrJI 1227 error qualifies as plain error and to determine preservation for the remaining issue.
- Discussion includes the nature of Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure as not all being statutes, and the interaction with ORS 136.330(2) extending ORCP 59 H to criminal actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORCP 59 H governs preservation for appellate review | Defendant: ORCP 59 H does not apply to appellate review. | State: ORCP 59 H applies to criminal actions and controls preservation. | ORCP 59 H does not govern appellate preservation or preclude plain-error review. |
| Whether UCrJI 1227 error is plain error after Oliphant | Defendant: UCrJI 1227 is incorrect and error; plain error review allowed. | State: Error not plain or depending on other instructions; plain-error review not required. | Court remanded to Court of Appeals to determine if the error qualifies as plain error. |
| Whether the trial court’s refusal to give the requested 'unreasonable physical force' instruction was preserved | Defendant: Preservation not governed by ORCP 59 H; apply standard of preservation from this court’s case law. | State: Preservation governed by ORCP 59 H(l) and(l)(2). | Remand to Court of Appeals to resolve preservation under this court’s jurisprudence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Oliphant, 347 Or 175 (Or. 2009) (UCrJI 1227 erroneous as stated in Oliphant)
- State v. Vanornum, 250 Or App 693 (Or. App. 2012) (preservation requirements for instructional error)
- State v. Ramirez, 343 Or 505 (Or. 2007) (plain error standard elements)
- State v. Gornick, 340 Or 160 (Or. 2006) (plain error framework)
- Ailes v. Portland Meadows, 312 Or 376 (Or. 1991) (plain-error review considerations)
- Davis v. O’Brien, 320 Or 729 (Or. 1995) (preservation and error-correcting policies)
- Wyatt, 331 Or 335 (Or. 2000) (specificity of objections required to preserve error)