State v. Chase
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: June 18, 2014 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JEREMY JOSEPH CHASE, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 120646914 A153056 John A. Wittmayer, Judge. Submitted on April 04, 2014. Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Andrew D. Robinson, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Sarah M. Villanueva, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge. PER CURIAM Conviction for second-degree criminal trespass reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed. 1 PER CURIAM 2 Defendant seeks reversal of his conviction for second-degree criminal 3 trespass, which is committed if a "person enters or remains unlawfully in a motor vehicle 4 or in or upon premises."1 ORS 164.245. The trial court did not include the definition of 5 "enter or remain unlawfully" in its instruction to the jury. For this case, the relevant 6 definition of "enter or remain unlawfully," as provided by ORS 164.205(3)(b), is "[t]o fail 7 to leave premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed to do so by the 8 person in charge." Defendant argues that the jury instruction should have included that 9 definition, and that it was plain error for the court to neglect to instruct the jury on that 10 point. See State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355, 800 P2d 259 (1990) ("The court generally 11 must instruct on all essential elements of the crime charged."). The state concedes that 12 the trial court committed plain error when it failed to provide the jury with the proper 13 instruction. We agree, accept the state's concession, and exercise our discretion to correct 14 the error because the jury could have convicted defendant under an incorrect legal theory; 15 thus, prejudicing defendant, and such a result would not advance the ends of justice. See 16 ORAP 5.45(1); Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 382, 823 P2d 956 (1991) 17 (court can exercise its discretion to review an unpreserved error of law apparent on the 18 face of the record); Brown, 310 Or at 355-56 (exercising discretion to correct plain error 19 of failing to instruct jury on an element of the offense). 1 Defendant does not challenge his convictions for harassment, in violation of ORS 166.065, fourth-degree attempted assault, in violation of ORS 163.160 and ORS 161.405, and second-degree disorderly conduct, in violation of ORS 166.025. 1 1 2 Conviction for second-degree criminal trespass reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed. 2
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.
