State v. Yen Lin Wan
251 Or. App. 74
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant refused to allow police entry to his apartment after a domestic disturbance, leading to a warrantless entry once officers heard a crying girlfriend in distress.
- Officers observed the girlfriend lying in a fetal position, crying, and believed immediate aid was necessary.
- Defendant was charged with two counts of interference with a police officer and one count of resisting arrest; trial court denied suppression of evidence obtained from the entry.
- Defendant testified that he did not understand commands due to limited English and that officers entered after forcing the door, leading to a struggle.
- Defendant requested self-defense jury instructions during the resisting arrest charge; the court refused; jury found him guilty of all counts, with two interference counts merged into one.
- On appeal, the conviction for resisting arrest was reversed and remanded; the conviction for interference with a police officer was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless entry was justified | State relied on emergency aid doctrine to justify entry. | Entry was unlawful; suppression should apply. | Emergency aid justified entry; suppression denied. |
| Self-defense during arrest instruction adequacy | No error in not giving self-defense instruction. | Entitled to self-defense instructions based on Oliphant. | Court erred in refusing to give self-defense instructions six and seven; remanded. |
| Completeness of self-defense instruction on reasonable force | Instruction six provided adequate framework under Oliphant. | Additional components needed to reflect ORS 161.209. | Instruction six was correct under the circumstances; but its omission of certain language was not dispositive; court still erred overall regarding six and seven. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baker, 350 Or 641 (2011) (establishes emergency aid standard for warrantless entries)
- State v. Oliphant, 347 Or 187 (2009) (self-defense during arrest requires reasonable belief that force is excessive)
- State v. Branch, 208 Or App 286 (2006) (test for instructional error when self-defense is raised)
- State v. Wilhelm, 55 Or App 168 (1981) (instruction must be complete to inform self-defense analysis)
- State v. Dahrens, 192 Or App 283 (2004) (requirements for self-defense jury instructions)
- State v. Salisbury, 223 Or App 516 (2008) (community caretaking and admissibility considerations alongside emergency aid)
- State v. Davis, 295 Or 227 (1983) (per se unreasonableness of warrantless entries absent exceptions)