State v. Martin

Trial courts may refuse to give special jury instructions that "destroy the neutral form that instructions should have." St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Baughman, 61 Or App 534, 538, 657 P2d 1254, rev den, 295 Or 259 (1983).

Defendant appealed judgment of conviction for eight counts of felony public indecency.  Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s declining to give Defendant’s special jury instruction on eyewitness identifications.  On appeal, Defendant argued that the jury should have been given a jury instruction on eyewitness instructions similar to an instruction given in State v. Lawson/James, 352 OR 724, 291 P3d 673 (2012).  In response, the State argued that no special instruction on eyewitness identification was appropriate, and that the uniform instruction sufficed on the issue. A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions if they correctly state the law and are supported by evidence, but “a trial court does not err in refusing to give an instruction if that instruction as requested, ‘destroys the neutral form that instructions should have.’” St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Baughman, 61 Or App 534, 538, 657 P2d 1254, rev den, 295 Or 259 (1983).  The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in declining Defendant’s special jury instructions because they were “unduly slanted toward the Defendant’s view of the evidence as a whole.”  Affirmed.