Court Opinion

ID: 9628794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:32:10.749497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:59.812625
License: Public Domain

SCHWAB, C. J.,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that the instruction on flight is "embedded in Oregon jurisprudence.” 28 Or App at 827. It is interesting to note that after having regularly sought the instruction at least since 1910, State v. Lem Woon, 57 Or 482, 107 P 974, 112 P 427, aff'd 229 US 586, 33 S Ct 783, 57 L Ed 1340 (1910), the state challenges its propriety when in an unusual situation a defendant seeks to have the same legal theory inure to his benefit. Were I writing on a clean slate I would probably agree with the rationale of the majority, but — contrary to the majority — I think the numerous Supreme Court opinions dealing with the subject of flight collectively constitute an implicit holding of that court which only it should change; specifically, that when supported by the evidence an instruction of flight should be given when requested.