State v. Craigen

"[A] defendant’s 'personal characteristics' are appropriately considered as part of the defendant’s 'situation' for purposes of the EED defense, whereas a defendant’s 'personality characteristics' or 'personality traits' are not permissibly considered as part of the defendant’s ‘situation.’” Zielinksi, 287 Or App at 780 (citing State v. Ott, 297 Or 375, 686 P2d 1001 (1984)).

The State petitioned for reconsideration of the Court’s reversal of Defendant’s conviction for murder. On petition, the State sought clarification of the Court’s disposition of three assignments of error that were not expressly addressed in its opinion following the Court's decision in State v. Zielinski, 287 Or App 770, 404 P3d 972 (2017). The State argued that, under Zielinski, the evidence presented by Defendant was not relevant to his extreme emotional disturbance ("EED") defense and those “symptoms” presented were inadmissible “personality characteristics” regardless of whether they resulted from a disorder or injury that may be considered as part of Defendant’s “situation.” In response, Defendant argued that he presented all relevant symptoms of Axis I anxiety disorder that was determined to be relevant to Defendant’s “situation” in Zielinski; and thus was admissible. "[A] defendant’s 'personal characteristics' are appropriately considered as part of the defendant’s 'situation' for purposes of the EED defense, whereas a defendant’s 'personality characteristics' or 'personality traits' are not permissibly considered as part of the defendant’s ‘situation.’” Zielinksi, 287 Or App at 780 (citing State v. Ott, 297 Or 375, 686 P2d 1001 (1984)). The Court found that the evidence of Defendant's impulsivity, impaired judgment, and emotional lability, did not speak to his concrete emotional experience at the time of the crime for purposes of the EED defense, but instead is “intertwined” with his personality. Thus, the Court held, under Zielinski, that the trial court erred when it determined that evidence of Defendant’s depression and brain injury could not be considered in connection with Defendant’s EED defense, but that the trial court correctly excluded evidence that Defendant’s injury or his depression made him impulsive, emotionally labile, and lacking in judgment.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.