State v. Pierpoint

A legal error constitutes a plain error if it is “so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard [it] would not have been sufficiently curative to assure the court, in its consideration of all the circumstances, that the defendant received a fair trial.” State v. Chitwood, 370 Ore. 305, 312 (2023).

During defendant’s trial, the prosecutor made remarks to the jury concerning the defendant's decision not to testify and implied that defendant had already been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the grand jury.  The Supreme Court remanded this case in light of State v. Chitwood. The trial court did not declare a mistrial or further instruct the jury, which was appealed. The Court reviewed the case and affirmed the conviction without opinion. In light of State v. Chitwood, the defendant filed a petition for reconsideration by the Court. On remand from the Supreme Court, defendant argued that he did not receive a fair trial because of the prosecutor’s comments and therefore the trial court should have granted sua sponte a mistrial. “The error is plain when (1) it is one of law; (2) it is obvious and not reasonably in dispute; and (3) it appears on the record.” Chitwood, 370 Ore. at 312. A legal error constitutes a plain error if it is “so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard [it] would not have been sufficiently curative to assure the court, in its consideration of all the circumstances, that the defendant received a fair trial.” Chitwood, 370 Ore. at 312. The Court found that both of the prosecutor’s comments to the jury invited the jury to speculate and therefore improperly prejudiced the jury. The combination of both misstatements constituted plain errors. Reversed and remanded.