State v. Flack

: “[I]n cases where a defendant has raised a defense of self-defense, a jury instruction regarding ‘an officer’s right to use force . . . in effectuating an arrest’ inserts ‘an irrelevant issue—the arresting officers’ actual state of mind—into the jury’s deliberations concerning [the defendant’s] claim of self-defense.’” State v. Oliphant, 347 Or. 175, 194, 218 P.3d 1281 (2009). “[T]he burden of proof [is] on the state to disprove the existence of that defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Oliphant, 347 Or. at 194.

Defendant appealed his trial court convictions for second-degree assault, resisting arrest, and assaulting a police officer.  Defendant assigned error to the trial court giving UCrJI 1227A, which instructs the jury about the arresting officer’s, Officer Murphy, state of mind.  On appeal, Plaintiff argued that his original objection to UCrJI 1116 was an objection to any instruction about an officer’s state of mind, and not just an objection to that specific rule.  In response, State argued that Defendant invited the error by not objecting to the court substituting UCrJI 1227A for UCrJI 1116.  “[I]n cases where a defendant has raised a defense of self-defense, a jury instruction regarding ‘an officer’s right to use force . . . in effectuating an arrest’ inserts ‘an irrelevant issue—the arresting officers’ actual state of mind—into the jury’s deliberations concerning [the defendant’s] claim of self-defense.’” State v. Oliphant, 347 Or. 175, 194, 218 P.3d 1281 (2009).  “[T]he burden of proof [is] on the state to disprove the existence of that defense beyond a reasonable doubt.”  Oliphant, 347 Or. at 194.  The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in giving UCrJI 1227A “because it shifted the burden of proof by suggesting that Defendant had to prove that [Officer] Murphy’s belief was unreasonable to prevail on his theory of self-defense.” Convictions for second-degree assault, resisting arrest, and assaulting a police officer reversed and remanded.