State v. Boggs

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Boggs

306 P.3d 660, 257 Or. App. 99

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 19, 2013

DocketC111739CR; A149837

StatusPublished

This text of 306 P.3d 660 (State v. Boggs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Boggs, 306 P.3d 660, 257 Or. App. 99 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of menacing, ORS 163.190, and unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred when it declined to give his requested jury instructions. In particular, defendant first proposed an instruction that “[t]hreatening to use a dangerous weapon is not use of that weapon,” and later proposed an instruction that threatening “to use a dangerous weapon as long as such does not serve a separate unlawful purpose is not use of that weapon.” However, as this court recently held in State v. Ziska, 253 Or App 82, 88-89, 288 P3d 1012 (2012), “‘use’ in ORS 166.220(1)(a) describes both the actual use of physical force and the threat of immediate use of physical force.” Thus, defendant’s proposed jury instructions were not a correct statement of the law, and the trial court did not err in declining to give them. See State v. Barnes, 329 Or 327, 334, 986 P2d 1160 (1999) (a party is not entitled to an instruction that incorrectly states the law).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of menacing, ORS 163.190, and unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred when it declined to give his requested jury instructions. In particular, defendant first proposed an instruction that “[t]hreatening to use a dangerous weapon is not use of that weapon,” and later proposed an instruction that threatening “to use a dangerous weapon as long as such does not serve a separate unlawful purpose is not use of that weapon.” However, as this court recently held in State v. Ziska, 253 Or App 82, 88-89, 288 P3d 1012 (2012), “‘use’ in ORS 166.220(1)(a) describes both the actual use of physical force and the threat of immediate use of physical force.” Thus, defendant’s proposed jury instructions were not a correct statement of the law, and the trial court did not err in declining to give them. See State v. Barnes, 329 Or 327, 334, 986 P2d 1160 (1999) (a party is not entitled to an instruction that incorrectly states the law).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 P.3d 660, 257 Or. App. 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-boggs-orctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack