State v. Strickland

“The legal standard for assessing the reasonableness of a person’s belief about the need for force or the extent of force necessary turns on an objective evaluation of the circumstances in which physical force has been used or threatened, and not on the perceptions of the individual defendant.” State v. Bassett, 234 Or App 259, 228 P3d 590 (2010).

Defendant appealed a conviction for ten counts of Menacing, Unlawful Use of a Weapon, and one count of Disorderly Conduct. Defendant assigned error to the trial court granting the State’s motion in limine to exclude a prior incident where the Defendant was injured by someone he secretly filmed. On appeal, Defendant argued that this prior instance of injury was relevant to show his state of mind when he was similarly filming a public demonstration, several demonstrators approached him, and he brandished his gun in self-defense. “The legal standard for assessing the reasonableness of a person’s belief about the need for force or the extent of force necessary turns on an objective evaluation of the circumstances in which physical force has been used or threatened, and not on the perceptions of the individual defendant.” State v. Bassett, 234 Or App 259, 228 P3d 590 (2010). The Court found that the only similarity between the Defendant’s past experience was that they had been filming. Thus, the Court held that the Defendant’s past experience was not probative of the claim of self-defense that the defendant asserted because the person who approached the Defendant was not one of the aggressive demonstrators. Affirmed.