State v. Horn-Garcia

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 06-08-2022
  • Case #: A172863
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Aoyagi, J. for the Court; Tookoey, P.J.; Kistler, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Informing the jury of the consequences of a particular verdict does not in and of itself violate a defendant’s due process rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments or deprive the defendant of a fair trial, and “[a] trial court does not err in refusing to give a requested instruction ‘if the substance of the requested jury instruction, even if correct, was covered fully by other jury instructions given by the trial court.’” State v. Amini, 174 Or App 370, 383 (2001); State v. Harrison, 292 Or App 232. 240 (2018).

Defendant was convicted of murder by abuse and first-degree criminal mistreatment following her stepdaughter’s death. Prospective jurors brought up the death penalty during voir dire. Defendant assigns error to the jury instructions, specifically: (1) instructing the jury that murder by abuse is not eligible for the death penalty; and (2) declining Defendant’s proposed jury instruction. Defendant argues that: (1) the curative instruction regarding the death penalty violated her constitutional right to due process and deprived her of a fair trial; and (2) she was entitled to her proposed instruction because it stated the law in support of her theory and was supported by evidence. Informing the jury of the consequences of a particular verdict does not in and of itself violate a defendant’s due process rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments or deprive the defendant of a fair trial, and “[a] trial court does not err in refusing to give a requested instruction ‘if the substance of the requested jury instruction, even if correct, was covered fully by other jury instructions given by the trial court.’” State v. Amini, 174 Or App 370, 383 (2001); State v. Harrison, 292 Or App 232. 240 (2018). Because the jury’s prior discussion regarding the death penalty created the potential for an unjust and improper acquittal, the curative instruction was reasonably necessary. While the trial court could have added defendant’s proposed language to the instruction, it was not required to do so. Affirmed. 

Advanced Search


Back to Top