State v. Hall
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
542 July 15, 2020 No. 355 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL SCOTT HALL, Defendant-Appellant. Clackamas County Circuit Court 18CR60245; A169964 Katherine E. Weber, Judge. Submitted June 5, 2020. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Mark Kimbrell, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 305 Or App 542 (2020) 543 PER CURIAM Defendant, who was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of menacing, argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his use of methamphetamine the day before the incident at issue—an altercation between defendant and others with whom he was in a property dispute, during which defendant threatened them with an inoperable firearm. Defendant raised self-defense and defense-ofproperty defenses. The state introduced evidence that defendant had used methamphetamine the day before the altercation, arguing it was relevant to whether defendant’s actions were “reasonable” for purposes of those defenses. On appeal, the state concedes that that evidence of defendant’s past drug use is irrelevant to an assessment of reasonableness for purposes of self-defense or defense of property. See State v. Hollingsworth, 290 Or App 121, 125, 41 P3d 83 (2018) (“reasonableness” for purposes of such defenses “must be assessed under an objective standard that does not depend on the defendant’s personal characteristics”). We agree and accept the state’s concession. Further discussion of the underlying facts of the case would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. Reversed and remanded.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
