State v. Schoemaker

As such, that jury instruction “could not have helped the jury and could have caused the jury to believe that whether the injury was protracted was relevant.” See, e.g., Staten v. Steel, 222 Or App 17, 41, 191 P3d 778 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009).

Defendant appealed his conviction of fourth-degree assault and assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal as well as the refusal of the jury instruction he requested defining “physical injury” which is a required element of the crime. On appeal, Defendant argued it was error to not give his jury instruction since it included the law stated correctly and would have aided the jury’s determination concerning if Defendant caused physical injury to the victim. In response, the State argued the trial court was correct in denying the requested instruction because it was unnecessary considering the instruction given or it could potentially confuse the jury. The Court agreed with the state that the instruction requested had the potential to cause confusion for the jury. As such, that jury instruction “could not have helped the jury and could have caused the jury to believe that whether the injury was protracted was relevant.” See, e.g., Staten  v. Steel, 222 Or App 17, 41, 191 P3d 778 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009). Affirmed.