State v. Longoria

In State v. Bistrika, the court overturned a conviction by a jury, because the failure to state a limitation on the jury instructions “probably created an erroneous impression of the law in the minds of the jurors which affected the outcome of this case.” State v. Bistrika, 262 Or App 385, 407, 324 P3d 584, rev den, 356 Or 397 (2014).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for first-degree robbery, ORS 164.415, and second-degree assault, ORS 163.175. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s instruction to the jury regarding the provocation limitation on self-defense. On appeal, the State challenged the provocation instruction stating that: (1) the provocation limitation does not apply here, as it does not apply when a person does something provocative without that specific intent; and (2) the evidence on the record failed to support giving this jury instruction. In response, Defendant argued that even if the trial court did err in giving the instruction, the error was harmless to Defendant. In State v. Bistrika, the court overturned a conviction by a jury, because the failure to state a limitation on the jury instructions “probably created an erroneous impression of the law in the minds of the jurors which affected the outcome of this case.” State v. Bistrika, 262 Or App 385, 407, 324 P3d 584, rev den, 356 Or 397 (2014). The Court held that this case was not like Bistrika because Defendant acknowledged that the provocation instruction that the court gave was legally correct, and therefore could not have “implied” an erroneous legal conclusion. Nevertheless, the evidence on the record suggested the jury relied on the State’s version of the facts, and from that, the Court believed Defendant's self-defense argument could not have succeeded, irrespective of any provocation instruction issue. Affirmed.