Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 10-23-2024
Case Style:
State of Oregon v. Parker James Lever
Case Number: 20CR58775
Judge: Matthew G. Galli
Court: Superior Court, Josephine County, Oregon
Plaintiff's Attorney: Josephine County, Oregon District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Grants Pass, Oregon criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with unlawful use of a weapon.
Defendant was convicted of two counts of unlawful use of a weapon with a firearm after he hit a Home Depot employee, BF, with a pistol. On appeal, defendant assigns six errors, but we only address one because it is dispositive: that the trial court plainly erred by not defining "initial aggressor" in its jury instructions for self-defense. For the reasons discussed below, we agree and, accordingly, reverse and remand for a new trial.
We describe the evidence "in the light most favorable to defendant having acted in self-defense and having not been the initial aggressor." State v. Worsham, 332 Or.App. 154, 156, 548 P.3d 849, rev allowed, 372 Or. 787 (2024). While shopping at Home Depot, defendant approached BF and asked him for help locating an item. BF responded that the item was located in a particular aisle and that he was in the middle of helping another customer. As BF began to walk away, defendant called him a "dick." After a brief verbal exchange between BF and defendant, BF again walked away to help the other customer. Defendant then called him a "motherfucker." A shouting match between the two men ensued, which culminated with defendant hitting BF with his pistol.
At trial, the state argued that defendant first initiated physical contact with BF by pulling BF's apron and facemask. Defendant, appearing pro se, argued that he acted in self-defense. Defendant admitted that he called BF derogatory names, but he argued that the altercation only became physical after BF pushed defendant. Because defendant claimed self-defense, the trial court instructed the jury about the elements of that defense, including that self-defense is not available to the "initial aggressor." The jury instructions did not include a definition for "initial aggressor."
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court plainly erred by not defining "initial aggressor," because it is a legal term of art and the common understanding of "initial aggressor" is broader than its legal meaning.
3
[335 Or.App. 620] Defendant acknowledges that his argument is unpreserved and requests plain error review.
State v. Lever, 335 Or.App. 618, A179653 (Or. App. Oct 23, 2024)
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: