State v. Scatamacchia

In determining whether there is an error, the court must “consider the instructions as a whole and in the context of the evidence and record at trial, including the parties’ theories of the case with respect to the various charges and defenses at issue.” State v. Payne, 366 Or. 588 (2020).

Defendant appealed a conviction of second degree assault on the basis that the jury received incorrect instructions.  At trial, Defendant requested the culpable mental state “must find that [defendant] knew or believed his actions would result in serious physical injury” or “he knew of the assaultive nature of his conduct” and “that he negligently caused serious physical injury.”  Defendant assigned error to the denial of special jury instructions.  On appeal, Defendant argued the trial court erroneously provided the jury with uniform instructions. Following Defendant’s trial, the Supreme Court held the required mental state for an assault conviction required the defendant, “knew his actions were assaultive and that, at least, he negligently caused physical injury by failing to be aware of the risk that his action would cause such injury.” State v. Owen, 369 Or 288 (2022).  In determining whether there is an error, the court must “consider the instructions as a whole and in the context of the evidence and record at trial, including the parties’ theories of the case with respect to the various charges and defenses at issue.”  State v. Payne, 366 Or. 588 (2020). The Court reasoned the trial court’s error was harmless because there was “little likelihood that the outcome would have been affected by instructing the jury that a defendant must have been at least criminally negligently.”  The Court concluded the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s request for special jury instructions. Affirmed.