State v. Owen

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Supreme Court
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 03-13-2022
  • Case #: S067658
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Walters, C.J., Balmer, J., Flynn, J., Duncan, J., Nelson, J., Garrett, J., Nakamoto, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 163.175, a person commits second-degree assault if the person “[i]ntentionally or knowingly causes physical injury to another by means of a deadly or dangerous weapon,” and under ORS 161.095(2), no culpable mental state attaches to the result element of second-degree assault.

Petitioner was indicted on two counts of second-degree assault for “ knowingly causing physical injury to another person by means of a dangerous weapon.” Petitioner requested the trial court to issue jury instructions that would have required the state to probe his mental state regarding the injuries that resulted from his actions. However, the trial court instructed the jury that the state had to prove Petitioner’s “knowledge of the assaultive nature of his actions” consistent with State v. Barnes, 329 Or 327 (1999). On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s instructions.

On review, Petitioner argued that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury because the state had to prove that either he knew his actions would cause physical injury to the victim or that he knew his actions were assaultive.

The court agreed with Petitioner’s argument, overturning Barnes, in part. The court explained that although the offense of second-degree assault contains two elements–a conduct element and a resultant injury, “no culpable mental state attaches to the result element of second-degree assault.” The court upheld the holding in Barnes, however, that the “knowingly” culpable mental state does not apply to the injury element. Nonetheless, the court affirmed the judgment because it was unlikely that the error affected the verdict because even if the jury had received Petitioner’s requested instruction, the jury would not have found that Petitioner was unaware that his actions would cause the victim physical injuries.

Affirmed.

Advanced Search


Back to Top