Opinion ID: 1154934
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Aggravated Murder.

Text: The Court of Appeals concluded that, because the jury determined by special verdict that defendant had not made out the affirmative defense, the court did not need to reach the question whether EED can be asserted as a defense to a charge of aggravated murder. 115 Or.App. at 51-52, 839 P.2d 712. The Court of Appeals later answered the question that it left open in this case. In State v. Hessel, 117 Or.App. 113, 119, 844 P.2d 209 (1992), [4] that court held that EED is not a defense to aggravated murder. If, as defendant argues, the trial court committed prejudicial error in limiting expert testimony about his asserted EED defense and in instructing the jury on that defense, then the jury's special verdict rejecting the EED defense would not resolve the claim of error. For that reason, and because this issue already has recurred and been addressed in Hessel, we address the ultimate question: Was defendant entitled to present an EED defense to the crime of aggravated felony murder? The legislature has answered that question plainly. EED is a defense to the crime of intentional murder, and to no other crime: It is an affirmative defense to murder for purposes of ORS 163.115(1)(a) that the homicide was committed under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance   . Extreme emotional disturbance does not constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of,    any other crime. ORS 163.135(1). (Emphasis added.) Aggravated felony murder is a different crime than intentional murder; therefore, under ORS 163.135(1), extreme emotional disturbance is not a defense to aggravated felony murder. The trial court correctly instructed the jury that EED is not a defense to aggravated felony murder.