and submitted April 21, 2017.
County Circuit Court 201425268; Maurice K. Merten, Judge.
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.
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.
Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Wollheim,
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.
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
Or.App. 46] SHORR, J.
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.
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).
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, ...