Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Shields

Court of Appeals of Oregon

November 22, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
PAUL KAY SHIELDS, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted April 21, 2017.

         Lane County Circuit Court 201425268; Maurice K. Merten, Judge.

          Erica Herb, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Offce of Public Defense Services.

          Erin K. Galli, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

          Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Wollheim, Senior Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of various crimes. Defendant assigns error to the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the guilty except for insanity (GEI) defense, ORS 161.295, and refusal to include a GEI defense option on the verdict form. Under ORS 161.295, a defendant can be found guilty except for insanity if, as a result of a mental disease or defect at the time of the crime at issue, the defendant lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform that conduct to the requirements of law. Here, defendant argues that the trial court was required to present the GEI defense to the jury because defendant established that he suffered from a mental disease or defect.

         Held:

         The trial court did not err when it refused to instruct the jury on the GEI defense. First, even assuming that defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect, defendant did not provide any evidence from which a jury could infer that, as a result, he lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform that conduct to the requirements of law. Second, the jury instructions and the verdict form make [289 Or.App. 45] up the instructions as a whole; thus, for the same reason that defendant failed to establish that the trial court had to provide a GEI instruction, defendant also failed to establish that the court had to provide a GEI defense option on the verdict form.

         Affirmed.

         [289 Or.App. 46] SHORR, J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of burglary in the first degree, ORS 164.225; robbery in the second degree, ORS 164.405; identity theft, ORS 165.800; and possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894. Defendant assigns error to the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the guilty except for insanity (GEI) defense, ORS 161.295, and to the trial court's refusal to include a GEI defense option on the jury verdict form. We conclude that the trial court did not err in either respect. Therefore, we affirm.

         "We review the record to determine whether defendant presented any evidence to support the defenses he sought to assert and evaluate that evidence in the light most favorable to defendant." State v. Miles, 197 Or.App. 86, 88, 104 P.3d 604, rev den, 338 Or. 488 (2005).

         The undisputed facts on appeal are as follows. Defendant first broke into a home, confronted the homeowners with a gun, and demanded cash, a debit card, and the "PIN" code for the card. He then used the card to withdraw money from an automated teller machine. Two days later, defendant robbed an adult video store. He was arrested at a bus stop after a police officer responding to the robbery recognized him based on a description that had been provided by one of the video store's owners. Defendant was carrying a waist pack containing needles and methamphetamine, and a backpack containing, among other things, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.