Notes of Decisions
Since the legislature's intention in enacting this section and ORS 161.225 (Use of physical force in defense of premises) (2) was to codify the common law of self-defense and not to articulate a new standard, the statutory phrases requiring that there be a "felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person," "unlawful deadly physical force," or a "felony by force and violence" are the functional equivalents of the case law requirement of "great bodily harm." State v. Burns, 15 Or App 552, 516 P2d 748 (1973), Sup Ct review denied
Defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense under either this section or ORS 161.225 (Use of physical force in defense of premises) (2) if there is evidence in the record that he was in imminent danger of receiving great bodily harm from the other person. State v. Burns, 15 Or App 552, 516 P2d 748 (1973), Sup Ct review denied
The fact that defendant produced and threatened to use a firearm in an attempt to terminate a criminal trespass did not deprive him of the right to claim self-defense under this section for the actual use of the firearm which occurred subsequently. State v. Burns, 15 Or App 552, 516 P2d 748 (1973), Sup Ct review denied
Self-defense is founded on necessity and, where defendant could avoid threatened danger without sacrificing own safety, he was required to do so; refusal to give instruction that person claiming right of self-defense is not required to retreat before using deadly physical force against assailant was not error. State v. Charles, 293 Or 273, 647 P2d 897 (1982). But see State v. Sandoval, 342 Or 506, 156 P3d 60 (2007)
Duty to retreat imposed under this section does not extend to police officers performing their official function. Reed v. Hoy, 891 F2d 1421 (9th Cir 1989)
Even when one or more of threatening circumstances described in this statute is present, use of deadly force is justified only if it does not exceed "degree of force which person reasonably believes to be necessary" under ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person). State v. Haro, 117 Or App 147, 843 P2d 966 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
Person is not required to retreat before using deadly physical force to defend against imminent use of deadly physical force by another. State v. Sandoval, 342 Or 506, 156 P3d 60 (2007)
Law Review Citations
51 OLR 579-587 (1972)
Notes of Decisions
Under Former Similar Statute (ORS 163.110)
There were cases where self-defense would not be a defense but the right to self-defense was still available to establish that the defendant was engaged in a lawful act at the time of the killing. State v. Leos, 7 Or App 211, 490 P2d 521 (1971)
Chapter 161
Notes of Decisions
A juvenile court adjudication of whether or not a child committed acts which would be a criminal violation if committed by an adult must necessarily include an adjudication of all affirmative defenses that would be available to an adult being tried for the same criminal violation. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. L. J., 26 Or App 461, 552 P2d 1322 (1976)
Law Review Citations
2 EL 237 (1971); 51 OLR 427-637 (1972)
