State v. Teagues

The state must choose a particular occurrence, and not raise two theories, to base a conviction for assault in violation of ORS 163.160(1)(a)

The defendant appealed his fourth-degree assault conviction because he claims error in the court accepting the states two possible occurrence that led to the assault. The state claimed that the victim scraped her knee or was choked. The defendant, however, wanted the state to elect a theory to constitute assault. The District court, nonetheless, did not instruct the jury to select one occurrence but accepted both occurrences. On appeal, the panel noted that under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, the uniformity rule requires that the defendant actual commit the crime. Since the two occurrences raised were temporally and spatially distinct, it raised different factual questions. The panel ultimately held that the jury should have been instructed to choose a theory to base the assault since both theories could lead to different result from the jury. The conviction was reversed and remanded.