State v. Shine

A “trial court lacks discretion to omit matters of law necessary for the jury’s information in giving its verdict from its oral presentation of the instructions to the jury after close of evidence.”

Defendant appeals jury conviction and raises eight assignments of error. The Court focused on Defendant’s sixth assignment of error that the trial court erred by refusing to read aloud all of the jury instructions at the end of the trial. The trial court informed parties its practice was to provide the jury with “procedural” but not “substantive” instructions at the start of the trial and provides substantive instructions before closing arguments. The trial court provided the jury with written copies of the standard preliminary instructions and read them allowed, including instructions on the presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, ect. The trial court told parties it would not reread the instructions that were provided at the start of the trial, and before closing argument the court read the remaining jury instructions beginning with the definition of sexual terms in the offenses and the offenses themselves. Defendant argues that under OCP 58B and 59B the court was required to reread those instructions, and that the court’s refusal prejudiced him. The Court looked at ORCP 58B, which provides that a court must instruct the jury at two distinct times and gives courts discretion of when the second set must be read and provided in writing, and ORCP 59B which requires courts to instruct the jury on all matters of law necessary for its information in giving its verdict, both orally and in writing. A “trial court lacks discretion to omit matters of law necessary for the jury’s information in giving its verdict from its oral presentation of the instructions to the jury after close of evidence.” The Court reasoned that ORCP 59B does not give the trial court discretion to alter the method it provides instructions to the jury after close of evidence. The Court further reasoned the error was not harmless because there was a likelihood it affected the verdict, and that the trial court acknowledged the length of the trial may have affected the jury’s knowledge of the instructions. After determining that the trial court did not communicate all of the information to the fairness of the criminal justice system, the Court held the trial court erred by not reading aloud all of the final instructions to the jury and that the error was not harmless. Reversed and remanded.