State v. Vanornum, 250 Or. App. 693

Defendant was convicted of resisting arrest (ORS 162.315) and disorderly conduct in the second degree (ORS 166.025) after a jury trial.
At issue was jury instructions on self-defense in resisting arrest and a proposed special instruction defining unreasonable physical force.
The trial court read UCrJI 1227 (self-defense in resisting arrest) to the jury and denied a requested special instruction.
Defendant approved the UCrJI 1227 instruction but requested an additional instruction focused on defendant’s perspective.
Oliphant (2009) later held the standard misfocused jury deliberations by shifting focus to the officer’s belief, not the arrestee’s state of mind, in certain self-defense contexts.
The majority affirmed on preserved grounds under ORCP 59 H, discarding unpreserved instructional claims; a dissent argued the error was plain and prejudicial and warranted merits review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not giving the requested instruction	Oliphant supports the need for defendant-focused self-defense instruction	Instruction should reflect arrestee’s reasonable belief about force being excessive	Not reviewable due to lack of preservation under ORCP 59 H
Whether Oliphant-based error should be reviewed as plain error	Oliphant requires correct instruction regardng self-defense	Plain error review available despite no exception	Not reviewable under ORCP 59 H due to preservation requirements

State v. Oliphant, 347 Or 175 (2009) (redefines self-defense instruction to focus on arrestee’s belief)
State v. Wright, 310 Or 430 (1990) (earlier framework on resisting arrest and self-defense)
State v. Guardipee, 239 Or App 44 (2010) (preservation limits plain-error review for jury instructions)
Crismon v. Parks, 238 Or App 312 (2010) (requirement of competent evidence to support proposed instruction)
State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335 (2000) (need for precise objection to trial court)