State v. Butterfield

“For defendant to have lawfully used deadly force against the victims in self-defense, he must have reasonably believed that the person harmed was committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened the use of physical force against him, ORS 161.219(1), and that the degree of force that defendant used was necessary to defend himself, ORS 161.209”. State v. Cox, 329 Or App 228, 234.

Defendant appeals convictions for second-degree murder (count 1), second-degree assault (count 3), and felon in possession of a firearm (count 4). Defendant assigns four errors to the trial court, two for the trial courts denial of his motions for judgement of acquittal (MJOAs) and two for the trial courts incorrect instruction on the elements of assessing his self-defense claim. “For defendant to have lawfully used deadly force against the victims in self-defense, he must have reasonably believed that the person harmed was committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened the use of physical force against him, ORS 161.219(1), and that the degree of force that defendant used was necessary to defend himself, ORS 161.209”. State v. Cox, 329 Or App 228, 234. The Court reasoned that the trial court was correct in denial of defendant’s MJOAs because the state disproved the second element specifically that the use of force exceeded what was reasonably necessary. The Court further reasoned that the trial court did err in its instruction of third-degree robbery and consequently erred in its conclusion that the court had disproven self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the trial court did not err in their denial of defendant’s MJOAs, but did err in their instruction, which was harmless as to count 3, but not harmless to count 1. Reverse and remand count 1, remand for resentencing, otherwise affirmed.