State v. Hall

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Hall

469 P.3d 293, 305 Or. App. 542

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 15, 2020

DocketA169964

StatusPublished

This text of 469 P.3d 293 (State v. Hall) 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. Hall, 469 P.3d 293, 305 Or. App. 542 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted June 5, reversed and remanded July 15, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL SCOTT HALL, Defendant-Appellant. Clackamas County Circuit Court 18CR60245; A169964 469 P3d 293

Katherine E. Weber, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Mark Kimbrell, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 305 Or App 542 (2020) 543

PER CURIAM Defendant, who was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of menacing, argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his use of methamphetamine the day before the incident at issue—an altercation between defen- dant and others with whom he was in a property dispute, during which defendant threatened them with an inoper- able firearm. Defendant raised self-defense and defense-of- property defenses. The state introduced evidence that defen- dant had used methamphetamine the day before the alterca- tion, arguing it was relevant to whether defendant’s actions were “reasonable” for purposes of those defenses. On appeal, the state concedes that that evidence of defendant’s past drug use is irrelevant to an assessment of reasonableness for purposes of self-defense or defense of property. See State v. Hollingsworth, 290 Or App 121, 125, 41 P3d 83 (2018) (“reasonableness” for purposes of such defenses “must be assessed under an objective standard that does not depend on the defendant’s personal characteristics”). We agree and accept the state’s concession. Further discussion of the underlying facts of the case would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. Reversed and remanded.

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

Submitted June 5, reversed and remanded July 15, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL SCOTT HALL, Defendant-Appellant. Clackamas County Circuit Court 18CR60245; A169964 469 P3d 293

Katherine E. Weber, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Mark Kimbrell, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 305 Or App 542 (2020) 543

PER CURIAM Defendant, who was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of menacing, argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his use of methamphetamine the day before the incident at issue—an altercation between defen- dant and others with whom he was in a property dispute, during which defendant threatened them with an inoper- able firearm. Defendant raised self-defense and defense-of- property defenses. The state introduced evidence that defen- dant had used methamphetamine the day before the alterca- tion, arguing it was relevant to whether defendant’s actions were “reasonable” for purposes of those defenses. On appeal, the state concedes that that evidence of defendant’s past drug use is irrelevant to an assessment of reasonableness for purposes of self-defense or defense of property. See State v. Hollingsworth, 290 Or App 121, 125, 41 P3d 83 (2018) (“reasonableness” for purposes of such defenses “must be assessed under an objective standard that does not depend on the defendant’s personal characteristics”). We agree and accept the state’s concession. Further discussion of the underlying facts of the case would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

469 P.3d 293, 305 Or. App. 542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hall-orctapp-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack