Opinion · Orlaw Oregon

STATE v. MOORE, 293 Or. 309 (1982)

STATE OF Or., Respondent on Rev., v. RUSSELL MOORE, Petitioner onreview., 647 P.2d 903 (Or. 1982)

Type
Opinion
Court
Orlaw Oregon
Jurisdiction
Orlaw
Date
1982-06-29
Topic
general

STATE v. MOORE, 293 Or. 309 (1982) 647 P.2d 903 STATE OF OREGON, Respondent on review, v. RUSSELL MOORE, Petitioner onreview. CA No. A21829, SC No. 28338Oregon Supreme Court.Argued and submitted March 4, 1982.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE v. MOORE, 293 Or. 309 (1982). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

STATE v. MOORE,293 Or. 309(1982)
647 P.2d 903
STATE OF OREGON,Respondent on review,v. RUSSELL MOORE,Petitioner on
review.
CA No. A21829, SC No. 28338
Oregon Supreme Court.
Argued and submitted March 4, 1982.
Affirmed June 29, 1982.
In Banc
On review from Court of Appeals.fn*
John Daugirda, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.

William F. Gary, Solicitor General, Salem, argued the cause for for respondent on review. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.
PER CURIAM

Affirmed.Page 310

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.]Page 311
PER CURIAM.
We allowed review of this case to consider withState v.Charles, decided this date, the issue of whether, under Oregon law, a defendant who is confronted by an assailant using deadly physical force, having an opportunity to retreat in safety, has a duty to retreat, or may stand his ground and use deadly physical force against the assailant.

Defendant was convicted of attempted murder. He had requested, and the court refused to give, the following instruction on self-defense:
"A person claiming the right of self-defense is not required to retreat or to consider whether he could safely retreat. If he is honestly and reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily harm he may stand his ground and use whatever force is reasonably necessary under the circumstances, even to the extent of taking the life of the attacker."


Defendant claims that, based onState v. Radar,94 Or. 432,186 P. 79(1919) it was error for the trial court to refuse to give the requested instruction. We held inState v. Charles, (slip opinion June 29, 1982) that it was not error for the trial court to refuse to give an identical instruction.Charlescontrols.

Affirmed.Page 312
  1. Appeal from Circuit Court of Klamath County. Ted Abram, Judge.55 Or. App. 202(1981). ↩