State v. North

ORS 161.215(1) bars self-defense claims where the defendant either provoked the victim to act or was the initial aggressor.

Defendant appealed his second-degree murder conviction, raising seven assignments of error, including challenges to four key trial court rulings: the admission of other-acts evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence, the exclusion of certain evidence, and the trial court’s failure to address alleged prosecutorial misconduct. ORS 161.215(1) bars self-defense claims where the defendant either provoked the victim to act or was the initial aggressor. The court found the evidence sufficient on the provocation instruction under ORS 161.215(1). The Court reasoned that the jury could reasonably infer that Defendant provoked the victim to use force against him, intending to justify shooting the victim in self-defense. This inference was supported by the defendant's earlier statement to the victim that he was a "shooter." Additionally, the court found that the prosecutor's comments about the self-defense limitations under ORS 161.215(1) were not improper and did not mislead the jury. The court reasoned that the jury was not presented with these statements in isolation; the prosecutor had recited the statutory definitions of provocation and the initial aggressor limitations. The court held that the trial court had correctly instructed the jury on the law of self-defense, including the nuances of the provocation and initial aggressor limitations and affirmed the judgment.