State v. Northey

To determine if an omission of a mental-state instruction is harmless, the court asks whether “there is “some likelihood” that, had it considered the issue, the jury might not have been persuaded that the defendant was criminally negligent as to a substantial risk of physical injury to himself or the officers." State v. Stone, 324 Or App at 695. 

Defendant appeals his conviction of resisting arrest and contempt when officers attempted to arrest him for violating a restraining order. Defendant argues the jury instructions on his mental-state was a plain error that prejudiced his case to the jury. Additionally, Defendant appeals his contempt conviction, arguing that there was legally insufficient evidence to prove he wilfully disobeyed the restraining order. To determine if an omission of a mental-state instruction is harmless, the court asks whether “there is “some likelihood” that, had it considered the issue, the jury might not have been persuaded that the defendant was criminally negligent as to a substantial risk of physical injury to himself or the officers." State v. Stone, 324 Or App at 695. Although the State argued that the defendant’s mental state in Dye was found to be harmless, the Court distinguished Dye from the facts of this case because here, the mental state was not clear, whereas the mental state “criminally negligent” was implied from the facts and circumstances in Dye. The Court reasoned that because Defendant was on his front lawn when he was arrested, had the jury received the “criminally negligent” mental-state instructions, there was some likelihood that the jury would have been persuaded he was not guilty. On the issue of contempt, the Court found there was sufficient evidence in the record that defendant "willfully disobeyed” when he was repeatedly told to leave the property or he would be arrested. The Court held that the conviction for resisting arrest was erroneous; the conviction for contempt was affirmed. REVERSED in part; AFFIRMED in part.