State v. Butterfield

• Docket Number: A175927
• Decision Date: 08 May 2024
• Citation: 549 P.3d 545,332 Or.App. 526
• Parties: STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Page Lee BUTTERFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

549 P.3d 545

332 Or.App. 526

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Page Lee BUTTERFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.

A175927

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted February 27, 2023

May 8, 2024

Linn County Circuit Court, 19CR34494;Thomas McHill, Judge.

Neil F. Byl, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant.Also on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.

Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent.Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Powers, -Judge and Hellman, Judge.

HELLMAN, J.

₅₂₈Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for second-degree murder, ORS 163.115(Count 1), second-degree assault, ORS 163.175(Count 3), and felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270(Count 4).On appeal, defendant raises four assignments of error concerning his convictions for second-degree murder and second-degree assault.In the first two, defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal(MJOAs), arguing that the state did not adduce evidence sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that the state disproved defendant’s claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.In the third and fourth, defendant asserts that the trial court incorrectly instructed itself on the elements of his self-defense claim.

We reject defendant’s first and second assignments of error.However, as to his third and fourth, we agree that the trial court incorrectly instructed itself on the elements of third-degree robbery when determining whether defendant’s actions against the two people that he shot, C and L, were justified by self-defense under ORS 161.219(1).¹We further conclude that the trial court’s error was harmless as it relates to defendant’s conviction for second-degree assault, but not harmless as it relates to defendant’s conviction for second-degree murder.Accordingly, we reverse and remand defendant’s conviction for second-degree murder, remand for resentencing, and otherwise affirm.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW

We briefly set out the historical and procedural facts of the case here for context.We discuss the parties’ trial arguments and the trial court’s rulings in more detail in our analysis of defendant’s assignments of error.

₅₂₉L lived in a small camp trailer that had a main room and a bedroom.Around 1:30 a.m. on May 24, 2019, defendant met C and C’s friend, A, at L’s trailer for a drug transaction.Defendant did not know L or A, and C did not inform L in advance that he would be bringing strangers to L’s trailer for a drug exchange.L yelled at C for bringing people to his home without permission, asked them to "finish up what you’re gonna do and I’m going back to bed, get the hell outta here," and returned to his bedroom.

The camp trailer was dimly lit only by a flashlight.C, A, and defendant sat in the main room and talked for about 20 minutes while smoking methamphetamine before defendant presented Adderall pills for sale.

Soon after, C became agitated and confronted defendant.Around 2:15 a.m., C angrily accused defendant of being a liar.C clenched his hands and stood above defendant, who was seated in a chair with his back to the front door.Defendant was "scared" and told 0, "I wouldn’t do that to you[.]"C punched defendant in the face, said "Get up, you bitch," and kicked defendant’s backpack toward A, saying, "You’re leaving with nothing, motherfucker."²During the ensuing "scramble,"defendant stood and pointed a gun at C as C charged defendant with his head down, wrapping his arms around defendant"like he was trying to take him down to the ground."Defendant fatally shot C in the back of the head.

At some point after defendant shot C, L came out from his bedroom and hit defendant in an effort to get defendant out of his trailer.Defendant exited the trailer, and L tried to hit him again.Defendant then turned and shot L in the neck.Defendant fled the scene by vehicle, leaving behind his backpack and drug paraphernalia.

A contacted 9-1-1 around 2:30 a.m. and police arrived within minutes.Responding officers found L outside the trailer, conscious, and C deceased inside the trailer.Defendant was apprehended two days later.₅₃₀The state charged defendant with second-degree murder of C and attempted murder and second-degree assault of L, as well as felon in possession of a firearm and unauthorized use of a vehicle.Before trial, defendant filed a notice of his intent to rely on self-defense.SeeORS 161.055(the state has the burden of disproving a defense beyond a reasonable doubt when a defendant raises the defense by providing written pretrial notice to the state).

Defendant waived his right to a trial by jury.The bench trial took place over five days.At the end of the state’s case-in-chief, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal for second-degree murder, attempted murder, and second-degree assault on the basis that he was justified in using deadly force against C and L in self-defense because they were committing a felony robbery and/or a felony assault against him.SeeORS 161.209(governing when a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in self-defense) and ORS 161.219(governing when a person is justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense).The court denied defendant’s MJOAs and found defendant guilty of second-degree murder for his actions against C, second-degree assault with a firearm for his actions against L, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.Defendant timely appealed.

II.OVERVIEW OF LEGAL FRAMEWORK

[1, 2] Under ORS 161.209,

"a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense * * * from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose."

"[O]nce self-defense has been raised by a defendant, the state has the burden of disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt."State v. Oliphant,347 Or. 175, 190-91, 218 P.3d 1281(2009)(citingORS 161.055).To determine whether the state has met that burden, a factfinder must weigh "(1) whether the defendant reasonably believed that the victim .used or threatened to use unlawful physical force against the defendant; and (2) whether the defendant used a degree of force ₅₃₁in self-defense that the defendant reasonably believed was necessary,"State v. Poitra,261 Or App 818, 820-21, 323 P.3d 563(2014).

[3]ORS 161.219 expressly limits the use of deadly force in self-defense to certain cir- cumstances, "one of which is when the person reasonably believes that someone is ‘[c]ommitting or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person.’ "³State v. Cox,329 Or App 228, 231-32, 540 P.3d 36(2023)(quotingORS 161.219(1)).A factfinder "looks to the ‘precise moment in which [the]defendant acted’ to determine whether the use of deadly force was reasonably necessary, i.e.,‘at the moment hefired the gun.’ "Cox,329 Or App at 234, 540 P.3d 36(quotingState v. Harryman,277 Or App 346, 359, 371 P.3d 1213, rev. den.,360 Or. 401, 381 P.3d 843(2016)(emphasis inCox)).

[4, 5]" ‘The legal standard for assessing the reasonableness of a person’s belief about the need for force or the extent of force necessary turns on an objective evaluation of the circumstances in which physical force has been used or threatened, and not on the personal perceptions of the individual defendant.’ "State v. Strickland,303 Or App 240, 244, 463 P.3d 537, rev. den.,366 Or. 827, 470 P.3d 375(2020)(emphasis omitted).The question is therefore "how a reasonable person would have assessed the circumstances in which defendant found himself at the time * * *."Id.

[6] It follows that for defendant to have lawfully used deadly force against C and L in self-defense, he must have "reasonably believe[d] that the [person harmed] was ‘[c]ommitting or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against [him],’ORS 161.219(1), and that ‘the degree of force’ that ₅₃₂defendant used was ‘necessary’ to defend himself, ORS 161.209."Cox,329 Or App at 234, 540 P.3d 36.

III.ANALYSIS

A.The trial court did not err when it denied defendant’s MJOAs.

[7]We turn to defendant’s first two assignments of error, in which he asserts that the trial court erred in denying the MJOAs for second-degree murder and second-degree assault.Specifically, defendant argues that the state did not meet its burden to disprove his self-defense claim under ORS 161.219(1) because the state proffered insufficient evidence to disprove that defendant reasonably believed that C and L were committing a felony robbery or assault against him.

[8]"We review the denial of an MJOA to determine whether, after viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the state, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt."State v. Spears,223 Or App 675, 677, 196 P.3d 1037(2008)(citingState v Cunningham,320 Or. 47, 63, 880 P.2d 431(1994), cert. den.,514 U.S. 1005, 115 S.Ct. 1317, 131 L.Ed.2d 198(1995)).Because the parties do not dispute that defendant properly raised self-defense and the burden rests with the state to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the question is whether "evidence was sufficient for a rational [factfinder] to find that defendant did not act in lawful self-defense."Cox,329 Or App at 235, 540 P.3d 36.In this case, that question turns on whether a rational trier of fact could find: (1) that defendant did not reasonably believe that C and L were "[c]ommitting or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or...