IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY THE STATE OF OREGON, No. Plaintiff, V. JURY INSTRUCTIONS JEREMY JOSEPH CHRISTIAN, Defendant. FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT AND JURY It is your sole responsibility to make all the decisions about the facts in this case. You must evaluate the evidence to determine how reliable or how believable that evidence is. When you make your decision about the facts, you must then apply the legal rules to those facts and reach your verdict. Remember, however, that your power to reach a verdict is not arbitrary. When I tell you what the law is on a particular subject or tell you how to evaluate certain evidence, you must follow these instructions. Do not allow anything I have said or done during the course of this trial to suggest that I have formed any opinion about this case. Keep in mind that a judge is required by law to give certain instructions in every criminal case. When I have sustained objections to evidence, or ordered that evidence be stricken or excluded from your consideration, you must follow these rulings. Do not consider such matters during your deliberations. Base your verdict on the evidence and these instructions. The lawyers? statements and arguments are not evidence. If your recollection of the evidence is different from the lawyers? recollection, you must rely on your own memory. In deciding this case, you are to consider all the evidence you ?nd worthy of belief. It is your duty to weigh the evidence calmly and dispassionately and to decide this case on its merits. Do not allow bias, sympathy, or prejudice any place in your deliberations. Do not decide this case on guesswork, conjecture, or speculation. Do not consider what sentence might be imposed by the court if the defendant is found guilty. V. CHRISTIAN 17CR34550 Generally, the testimony of any witness whom you believe is suf?cient to prove any fact in dispute. You are not simply to count the witnesses, but you are to weigh the evidence. Keep in mind that each party is entitled to the considered decision of each juror. Therefore, you should not give undue weight to another juror?s notes or memory if they con?ict with your recollection of the evidence. The court has provided written instructions for your use. When you use these instructions, do not place undue emphasis on any particular instruction, but rather view the instructions as a whole. CRIMINAL CHARGES PLEA OF NOT GUILTY In this case, the defendant, Jeremy Christian, is charged with the twelve offenses listed in the indictment. To each of these charges, Mr. Christian has entered a plea of not guilty. A plea of not guilty is a denial of every fact alleged. EVALUATING WITNESS TESTIMONY The term witness includes every person who has testi?ed under oath in this case. Every witness has taken an oath to tell the truth. In evaluating each witness?s testimony, however, you may consider such things as: (1) The manner in which the witness testi?es. (2) The nature or quality of the witness?s testimony. (3) Evidence that contradicts the testimony of the witness. (4) Evidence concerning the bias, motives, or interest of the witness. (5) Evidence concerning the character of the witness. (6) Evidence that the witness has been convicted of a previous crime. INFERENCES In deciding this case you may draw inferences and reach conclusions from the evidence, if your inferences and conclusions are reasonable and are based on your common sense and experience. INNOCENCE OF PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT The defendant is innocent unless and until the defendant is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is on the state, and the state alone, to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is doubt based on common sense and reason. Reasonable doubt is not an imaginary doubt. Reasonable doubt means an honest uncertainty as to the guilt of the defendant. You must return a verdict of not guilty if, after careful and impartial consideration of V. CHRISTIAN all the evidence in the case, you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. DEFENDANT NOT TESTIFYING A defendant has an absolute constitutional right not to testify. Therefore, a defendant?s decision not to testify cannot be considered as an indication of guilt. It should not be commented on or in any way considered by you in your deliberations. PRIOR CONVICTION You?ve heard evidence that Mr. Christian was previously convicted of a crime. You may not use this evidence for the purpose of drawing the inference that, because the defendant was convicted of a previous crime, the defendant may be guilty of the crime charged in this case. PRIOR CONVICTION If you find that a witness has been convicted of a crime, you may consider this conviction only for its bearing, if any, on the credibility of the witness. STATEMENTS When a witness testi?es about statements made by the defendant, you should consider such testimony with caution. In reviewing such testimony, you should consider, among other things, the following: (1) Did the defendant make the statement, and, if so, did [he she] clearly express what [he she] intended to say? (2) Did the witness correctly hear and understand what the defendant said? (3) Did the witness correctly remember and relate what the defendant said? (4) Did the witness intentionally or mistakenly alter some of the defendant?s words, thereby changing the meaning of what was actually said? If, after weighing such factors, you conclude that the defendant said what [he she] intended to say and that the witness to the statement correctly understood, remembered, and related to you what the defendant said, then you are authorized to consider such statements for what you deem them to be worth. DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE There are two types of evidence. One is direct evidence-- such as the testimony of an eyewitness. The other is circumstantial evidence-- the proof of a chain of circumstances pointing to V. CHRISTIAN 17CR34550 the existence or nonexistence of a certain fact. You may base your verdict on direct evidence, or on circumstantial evidence, or on both. NONEXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE Although a witness may be allowed to state his or her opinion, you are not required to accept that opinion. To determine what value, if any, you will give to a witness?s opinion you should consider such things as the witness?s opportunity and ability to form the opinion, the witness?s believability, and how the witness reached the opinion. EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE An expert witness is a person with special skills or education in a particular ?eld. Even though expert witnesses may testify about their opinions, you are not required to accept these opinions. To determine the value, if any, you will give to an expert?s opinion, you should consider such things as the expert?s quali?cations, the expert?s opportunity and ability to form the opinion, the expert?s believability, and how the expert reached the opinion or conclusion. ATTEMPT A person attempts to commit a crime when he or she intentionally engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that crime DANGEROUS WEAPON The term dangerous weapon means any weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance that, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used, or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. PHYSICAL INJURY The term physical injury means an injury that impairs a person?s physical condition or causes substantial pain. An injury impairs a person?s physical condition if it results in a reduction in the person?s ability to use the body or a bodily organ or if it results in a reduction in a bodily organ?s ability to perform its ordinaiy function. Pain is substantial if it is ample or considerable. V. CHRISTIAN 17CR34550 SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY The term serious physical injury means a physical injury that (1) creates a substantial risk of death, (2) causes serious and protracted dis?gurement, (3) causes protracted impairment of health, or (4) causes protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ. INTENTIONALLY AND WITH INTENT A person acts ?intentionally? or ?with intent? when that person acts with a conscious objective to cause a particular result or engage in particular conduct. With respect to Count 1, when used in the phrase, ?intentionally cause the death of Taliesin Namkai-Meche,? ?intentionally? or ?with intent? means that a person acts with a conscious objective to cause the death of Taliesin Namkai-Meche. With respect to Count 2, when used in the phrase, ?intentionally cause the death of Ricky Best,? ?intentionally? or ?with intent? means that a person acts with a conscious objective to cause the death of Ricky Best. The above meanings also apply to the lesser included offense of murder in the second degree, which will be given to you elsewhere in these instructions. With respect to Count 3, when used in the phrase, ?intentionally attempt to cause the death of Micah David?Cole Fletcher,? ?intentionally attempt? means that a person acts with a conscious objective to attempt to cause the death of Micah David-Cole Fletcher. With respect to Count 4, when used in the phrase, ?intentionally cause serious physical injury to Micah David?Cole Fletcher,? ?intentionally? or ?with intent? means that a person acts with a conscious objective to cause serious physical injury to Micah David?Cole Fletcher. With respect to Count 5, when used in the phrase, ?intentionally subject Walia Mohamed to alarm by threatening to in?ict serious physical injury,? ?intentionally? or ?with intent? means that a person acts with a conscious objective to subject Walia Mohamed to alarm by threatening to in?ict serious physical injuly. With respect to Count 6, when used in the phrase, ?intentionally subject Destinee Mangum to alarm by threatening to in?ict serious physical injury,? ?intentionally? or ?with intent? means that a person acts with a conscious objective to subject Destinee Mangum to alarm by threatening to in?ict serious physical injury. V. CHRISTIAN 17CR34550 With respect to Count 7, when used in the phrase, ?intentionally attempt to use a dangerous weapon,? or ?possess with intent to use a dangerous weapon,? ?intentionally? or ?with intent? means that a person acts with a conscious objective to use a dangerous weapon against Shawn Forde. With respect to Count 8, when used in the phrase ?intentionally attempt to place Shawn Forde in fear of imminent serious physical injury,? ?intentionally? or ?with intent? means that a person acts with a conscious objective to place Shawn Forde in fear of imminent serious physical injury.? . With respect to Count 9, when used in the phrase, ?intentionally subject Demetria Hester to alarm by threatening to in?ict serious physical injury,? ?intentionally? or ?with intent? means that a person acts with a conscious objective to subject Demetria Hester to alarm by threatening to in?ict serious physical injury. With respect to Count 10, when used in the phrase ?intentionally cause physical injury to Demetria Hester, 1ntentionally? or ?with intent? means that a person acts with a conscious objective to cause physical injury to Demetria Hester. With respect to Count 11, when used in the phrase ?intentionally attempt to use a dangerous weapon,? or ?possess with intent to use a dangerous weapon,? ?intentionally? or ?with intent? means that a person acts with a conscious objective to use a dangerous weapon against Demetria Hester. With respect to Count 12, when used in the phrase ?intentionally attempt to place Demetria Hester in fear of imminent serious physical injury, 1ntentionally? or ?with intent? means that a person acts with a conscious objective to place Demetria Hester in fear of imminent serious physical injury.? KN OWINGLY AND WITH KNOWLEDGE A person acts ?knowingly? or ?with knowledge? if that person acts with an awareness that his conduct is of a particular nature or that a particular circumstance exists. With respect to Count 10,when used in the phrase ?knowingly cause physical injury to Demetria Hester by means of a dangerous weapon, ?knowingly? means that the person acts with an awareness that his conduct would cause physical injury to a Demetria Hester, and acts with an awareness that the weapon, in the manner in which it is used, is readily capable of causing serious physical injury. Knowledge is also established if the person acts intentionally. V. CHRISTIAN RECKLESSLY A person acts recklessly if that person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjusti?able risk that a particular result will occur or that a particular circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregarding it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. With reSpect to the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree, when used in the phrase ?recklessly cause the death of Taliesin Namkai-Meche,? ?recklessly? means that a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjusti?able risk that the person?s conduct could cause the death of Taliesin Namkai-Meche. With respect to the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree, when used in the phrase ?recklessly cause the death of Ricky Best,? ?recklessly? means that a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjusti?able risk that the person?s conduct could cause the death of Ricky Best. With respect to the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the ?rst degree, when used in the phrase, ?recklessly caused the death of Taliesin Namkai-Meche under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life,? ?recklessly? means that a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjusti?able risk that that the person?s conduct would cause the death of Taliesin Namkai?Merche. A person acts with an extreme indifference to the value of human life when the person?s conduct demonstrates an extraordinary lack of concern that his actions might cause the death of Taliesin Namkai?Meche. Whether the defendant acted with extreme indifference to the value of human life must be determined from the defendant's conduct and all the circumstances surrounding his conduct. With respect to the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the ?rst degree, when used in the phrase, ?recklessly caused the death of Ricky Best under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life,? ?recklessly? means that a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjusti?able risk that that the person?s conduct would cause the death of Ricky Best. A person acts with an extreme indifference to the value of human life when the person?s conduct demonstrates an extraordinary lack of concern that his actions might cause the death of Ricky Best. Whether the defendant acted with extreme indifference to the value of human life must be determined from the defendant's conduct and all the circumstances surrounding his conduct. Recklessness is also established if the person acts intentionally or knowingly. V. CHRISTIAN 17CR34550 CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE A person acts with criminal negligence if that person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjusti?able risk that a particular result will occur or that a particular circumstance exists. _The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in a situation. With respect to the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide, when used in the phrase, ?with criminal negligence, caused the death of Taliesin Namkai?Meche, ?criminal negligence? means that a person failed to be aware of a substantial unjusti?able risk that his conduct would cause the death of Taliesin Namkai-Meche. With respect to the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide, when used in the phrase, ?with criminal negligence, caused the death of Ricky Best, ?criminal negligence? means that a person failed to be aware of a substantial unjustifiable risk that his conduct would cause the death of Ricky Best. Criminal negligence is also established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. VOLUNTARY Evidence has been admitted that defendant may have been intoxicated at the time the crime charged was allegedly committed. The voluntary use of alcohol or drugs does not excuse or justify criminal conduct. However, if you ?nd he was intoxicated, you may consider evidence of voluntary intoxication in making your decision whether the defendant had the mental state that is required for the state to prove any charged offense. EVIDENCE OF MENTAL DISORDER You may consider evidence that the defendant may have been suffering from a mental disorder in considering whether he acted with intent where intent is an element of the crime. The term ?mental disorder? does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct, nor does the term include any abnormality constituting solely of a personality disorder. You may, however, consider mental disorders which do not fall within that description. V. CHRISTIAN OF PERSON The defense of self-defense has been raised. A person is justi?ed in using physical force on another person to defend himself from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force. In defending, a person may only use that degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary. The burden of proof is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does not apply. OF ANOTHER PERSON A person is justi?ed in using physical force on another person to defend a third party from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force. In defending, a person may only use that degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary. DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE Deadly physical force means physical force that under the circumstances in which it is used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. OF DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE There are certain limitations on the use of deadly physical force. The defendant is not justi?ed in using deadly physical force on another person unless he reasonably believed that the other person was committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against the defendant, or that the other person was using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against the defendant OF PHYSICAL FORCE IN DEFENSE OF The defendant is not justi?ed in using physical force on another person if he provoked the use of unlawful physical force by that other person with the intent to cause physical injury or death to the other person. V. CHRISTIAN Provocation occurs when a person provokes another person to use physical force so as to justify responding with physical force. Provocation does not occur when someone says or does something ?provocative? but in doing so does not intend to provoke the other person to respond with physical force. OF PHYSICAL FORCE IN DEFENSE OF Ordinarily, a person is not justified in using physical force on another person if he was the initial aggressor. However, the defendant?s use of physical force may be justified even though he was the aggressor, if you find that he withdrew from the encounter and effectively communicated to the other person an intent to withdraw from the encounter, but the other person nevertheless continued or threatened to continue the use of unlawful physical force on the defendant. REASONABLE BELIEF The term ?reasonably believes,? when used in self-defense instructions in this case, refers to a reasonable person standard. It is an objective standard based on how a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would have acted in the same or a similar situation. COERCION Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of coercion when the person compels or induces another person to engage in conduct from which the other person has a legal right to abstain, or compels or induces another person to abstain from engaging in conduct that the other person has a legal right to engage in by means of instilling in the other person a fear that, if the other person refrains from the conduct compelled or induced, or engages in conduct contrary to the compulsion or inducement, the actor or another will unlawfully cause physical injury to some person or engage in conduct constituting a crime. Coercion is a Felony. AID OR A person aids or abets another person in the commission of a crime if the person: (1) With the intent to promote or make easier the commission of the crime, (2) Encourages, procures, advises, or assists, by act or advice, the planning or commission of the crime. V. CHRISTIAN 17CR34550 ASSAULT IN THE THIRD DEGREE Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if the person, while being aided by another person actually present, intentionally or knowingly causes physical injury to a person. Assault in the Third Degree is a Felony. AIDED BY ANOTHER PERSON ACTUALLY IN THE THIRD DEGREE For the purpose of evaluating whether people committed or were about to commit assault in the third degree, a person?s mere presence at the site of an assault does not constitute aiding. Participating in, assisting, or encouraging the assault by act or advice may constitute aiding for the purpose of determining whether an assault in the third degree occurred or was about to occur. DEFINITIONS (1) Criminal episode?continuous and uninterrupted conduct that establishes at least one offense and is so joined in time, place, and circumstances that such conduct is directed to the accomplishment of a single criminal objective. (2) Criminal homicide?murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, or aggravated vehicular homicide. (3) Human being?a person who has been born and was alive at the time of the criminal act. COUNT 1 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE INTENTIONAL MURDER UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of murder in the ?rst degree if that person intentionally causes the death of another human being under, or accompanied by, certain de?ned circumstances. In this case, to establish the crime of murder in the ?rst degree, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 26, 2017; (2) Jeremy Christian intentionally caused the death of Taliesin Namkai-Meche; (3) And Ricky Best, another human being, was murdered in the same criminal episode. V. CHRISTIAN COUNT 2 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE INTENTIONAL MURDER UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of murder in the ?rst degree if that person intentionally causes the death of another human being under, or accompanied by, certain de?ned circumstances. In this case, to establish the crime of murder in the ?rst degree, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 26, 2017; (2) Jeremy Christian intentionally caused the death of Ricky Best; (3) And Taliesin Namkai-Merche, another human being, was murdered in the same criminal episode. LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE TO COUNTS 1 2 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE The charged crime of murder in the first degree has as a lesser included offense the crime of murder in the second degree. Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of murder in the second degree if that person intentionally causes the death of another human being. In this case, to establish the lesser included offense of murder in the second degree in Count 1, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 26, 2017; and (2) Jeremy Christian intentionally caused the death of Taliesin Namkai-Meche, another human being. In this case, to establish the lesser included offense of murder in the second degree in Count 2, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 26, 2017; and (2) Jeremy Christian intentionally caused the death of Ricky Best, another human being. V. CHRISTIAN 17CR34550 LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE ORDER OF DELIBERATION When you deliberate, you should ?rst consider the charged offense of murder in the ?rst degree. Only if you ?nd the defendant not guilty of the charged offense may you consider the lesser included offense of murder in the second degree. AFFIRMATIVE EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE An intentional homicide that would otherwise constitute murder in the second degree is reduced to manslaughter in the ?rst degree if, at the time of the homicide, the defendant was under the in?uence of an extreme emotional disturbance. This defense does not apply to murder in the ?rst degree. The af?rmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance to the lesser included offense of murder in the second degree has been raised. To establish the defense of an extreme emotional disturbance the defendant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the following three elements: (1) If the defendant committed an intentional homicide he was acting under an extreme emotional disturbance. This means that the defendant was under the in?uence of an emotional disturbance to the extent that he lost the capacity to control himself and forego the homicide. This could be brought on by either a sudden provocation or other events that aroused extreme mental or emotional disturbance. (2) If you ?nd the defendant acted under the in?uence of an extreme emotional disturbance, you must then determine whether there was a reasonable explanation for it. In determining reasonableness, you must consider the explanation from the standpoint of a person in the defendant?s situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. In determining the defendant?s situation, you may take into account such personal characteristics of the defendant as age, sex, cultural background, physical stature, and mental and physical handicaps. However, you may not consider personality traits of the defendant. After determining the situation that you believe the defendant found himself to be in, you must determine whether an ordinary person in that situation would have experienced such extreme emotional disturbance that he would have lost the capacity to control himself and forego the homicide. (3) If you ?nd that there was an extreme emotional disturbance and that there was a reasonable explanation for it, then you must determine whether the extreme emotional disturbance was the result of the defendant?s own intentional, knowing, reckless, or criminally V. CHRISTIAN 17CR34550 negligent act. If the extreme emotional disturbance was the result of such an act on the defendant?s part, the murder in the second degree is not to be reduced to manslaughter based on extreme emotional disturbance. If the defendant proves all three of the elements by a preponderance of the evidence, then an intentional homicide that would otherwise constitute murder in the second degree is, instead, manslaughter in the ?rst degree. OFFENSE TO COUNTS 1 2 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE The charged crimes of murder in the ?rst degree and murder in the second degree have as a lesser included offense the crime of manslaughter in the ?rst degree. Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of manslaughter in the ?rst degree if that person recklessly causes the death of another person under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. In this case, to establish the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the ?rst degree in Count 1, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 26, 2017; (2) Jeremy Christian unlawfully and recklessly caused the death of Taliesin Namkai-Meche under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. In this case, to establish the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the ?rst degree in Count 2, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 26, 2017; (2) Jeremy Christian unlawfully and recklessly caused the death of Ricky Best under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. MULTIPLE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES ORDER OF DELIBERATION When you deliberate, you should ?rst consider the charged offense of murder in the ?rst degree. Only if you ?nd the defendant not guilty of the charged offense may you consider the lesser included offense of murder in the second degree. If you ?nd defendant established the af?rmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance for what would have otherwise been murder in the second degree, then your ?nding is for manslaughter in the ?rst degree. V. CHRISTIAN But if you ?nd the defendant not guilty of the lesser included offense of murder in the second degree, only then may you consider whether the state has proved the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the ?rst degree. LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE TO COUNTS 1 2 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE The charged crimes of murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree and manslaughter in the ?rst degree have as a lesser included offense the crime of manslaughter in the second degree. Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of manslaughter in the second degree if that person recklessly causes the death of another human being. In this case, to establish the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree in Count 1, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 26, 2017; and (2) Jeremy Christian recklessly caused the death of Taliesin Namkai-Merche. In this case, to establish the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree in Count 2, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 26, 2017; and (2) Jeremy Christian recklessly caused the death of Ricky Best. MULTIPLE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES ORDER OF DELIBERATION When you deliberate, you should ?rst consider the charged offense of murder in the ?rst degree. Only if you ?nd the defendant not guilty of the charged offense may you consider the lesser included offense of murder in the second degree. Only if you ?nd the defendant not guilty of the lesser included offense of murder in the second degree may you consider the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the ?rst degree. Only if you ?nd the defendant not guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree may you consider the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree. V. CHRISTIAN LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE TO COUNTS 2 CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE The charged crimes of murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the ?rst degree and manslaughter in the second degree have as a lesser included offense the crime of criminally negligent homicide. Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of criminally negligent homicide if that person, with criminal negligence, causes the death of another person. In this case, to establish the crime of criminally negligent homicide in Count 1, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 26, 2017; and (2) Jeremy Christian, with criminal negligence, caused the death of Taliesin Namkai-Merche. In this case, to establish the crime of criminally negligent homicide in Count 2, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 26, 2017; and (2) Jeremy Christian, with criminal negligence, caused the death of Ricky Best. MULTIPLE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES ORDER OF DELIBERATION When you deliberate, you should first consider the charged offense of murder in the ?rst degree. Only if you ?nd the defendant not guilty of the charged offense may you consider the lesser included offense of murder in the second degree. Only if you find the defendant not guilty of the lesser included offense of murder in the second degree may you consider the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree. Only if you find the defendant not guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree may you consider the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree. Only if you ?nd the defendant not guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree may you consider the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide. V. CHRISTIAN COUNT 3 ATTEMPTED MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of attempted murder in the ?rst degree if that person intentionally attempts to cause the death of another human being under, or accompanied by, certain de?ned circumstances. In this case, to establish the crime of attempted murder in the ?rst degree, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 26, 2017; (2) Jeremy Christian intentionally attempted to cause the death of Michah David-Cole Fletcher; and (3) Jeremy Christian intentionally attempted to cause the death of Taliesin Namkai-Meche or Ricky Best in the same criminal episode. COUNT 4 ASSAULT IN THE FIRST DEGREE Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of assault in the ?rst degree if the person intentionally causes serious physical injury to another by means of a dangerous weapon. In this case, to establish assault in the ?rst degree, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 26, 2017; and (2) Jeremy Christian intentionally caused serious physical injury to Micah David?Cole Fletcher by means of a dangerous weapon. COUNT 5 INTIMIDATION IN THE SECOND DEGREE Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of intimidation in the second degree if the person intentionally subjects another person to alarm by threatening to in?ict serious physical injury on the other person because of the person?s perception of the race, color, religion or national origin of the other person. In this case, to establish intimidation in the second degree, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 26, 2017; (2) Jeremy Christian intentionally subjected Walia Mohamed to alarm by threatening to in?ict serious physical injury upon her; and (3) Jeremy Christian committed the offense because of his perception of the race, color, religion, or national origin of Walia Mohamed. V. CHRISTIAN THREAT TO INFLICT SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY A ?threat to in?ict serious physical injury? for purposes of intimidation in the second degree must be unequivocal, and objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts. Those characteristics of a threat exclude the kind of hyperbole, rhetorical excesses, and impotent expressions of anger or frustration that in some contexts may alarm the addressee. A person commits an offense ?because of? that person?s perception of the race, color, religion, or national origin of another person when the perception of another person?s race, color, religion, or national origin played a role in the commission of the offense. COUNT 6 INTIMIDATION IN THE SECOND DEGREE Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of intimidation in the second degree if the person intentionally subjects another person to alarm by threatening to in?ict serious physical injury on the other person because of the person?s perception of the race, color, religion or national origin of the other person. In this case, to establish intimidation in the second degree, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 26, 2017; (2) Jeremy Christian intentionally subjected Destinee Mangum to alarm by threatening to in?ict serious physical injury upon her; and (3) Jeremy Christian committed the offense because of his perception of the race, color religion or national origin of Destinee Mangum. COUNT 7 UNLAWFUL USE OF A WEAPON (Attempting to Use a Dangerous Weapon) Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if the person attempts to use unlawfully against another any dangerous weapon. In this case, to establish the crime of unlawful use of a weapon, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 26, 2017; and V. CHRISTIAN 17CR34550 (2) Jeremy Christian intentionally attempted to use unlawfully against Shawn Forde any dangerous weapon. (Possession with Intent to Use a Dangerous Weapon) Oregon law also provides that a person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if the person possesses, with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous weapon. In this case, to establish the crime of unlawful use of a weapon, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 26, 2017; and (2) Jeremy Christian possessed any dangerous weapon, to wit: a knife, and (3) Jeremy Christian intended to use the weapon unlawfully against Shawn Forde. COUNT 8 MENACING Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of menacing if, by word or conduct, the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury. In this case, to establish the crime of menacing, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 26, 2017; and (2) Jeremy Christian intentionally attempted to place another person, Shawn Forde, in fear of imminent serious physical injury. COUNT 9 INTIMIDATION IN THE SECOND DEGREE Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of intimidation in the second degree if the person intentionally subjects another person to alarm by threatening to in?ict serious physical injury on the other person because of the person?s perception of the race, color, religion or national origin of the other person. In this case, to establish intimidation in the second degree, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 25, 2017; (2) Jeremy Christian intentionally subjected Demetria Hester to alarm by threatening to in?ict serious physical injury upon her; and (3) Jeremy Christian committed the offense because of his perception of the race, color religion or national origin of Demetria Hester. V. CHRISTIAN 17CR34550 COUNT 10 ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of assault in the second degree if the person intentionally or knowingly causes physical injuly to another by use of a dangerous weapon. In this case, to establish assault in the second degree, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: 1) The act occurred on or about May 25, 2017; (2) Jeremy Christian intentionally or knowingly caused physical injury to Demetria Hester by means of a dangerous weapon. COUNT 11 UNLAWFUL USE OF A WEAPON (Attempting to Use a Dangerous Weapon) Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if the person attempts to use unlawfully against another any dangerous weapon. In this case, to establish the crime of unlawful use of a weapon, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 25, 2017; and (2) Jeremy Christian intentionally attempted to use unlawfully against Demetria Hester any dangerous weapon. (Possession with Intent to Use a Dangerous Weapon) Oregon law also provides that a person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if the person possesses, with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous weapon. In this case, to establish the crime of unlawful use of a weapon, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 25, 2017; and (2) Jeremy Christian possessed any dangerous weapon, to wit: a Gatorade bottle, and (3) Jeremy Christian intended to use the weapon unlawfully against Demetria Hester. COUNT 12 MENACING Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of menacing if, by word or conduct, the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury. V. CHRISTIAN 17CR34550 In this case, to establish the crime of menacing, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) The act occurred on or about May 25, 2017; and (2) Jeremy Christian intentionally attempted to place another person, Demetria Hester, in fear of imminent serious physical injury. DELIBERATIONS VERDICT When you return to the jury room, select one of your members to act as presiding juror. The presiding juror has no greater voting weight but is to preside over your deliberations and be the spokesperson for the jury. You should then deliberate and ?nd your verdict. If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with me, do so in writing. I will consult with the parties before responding. No one except for you, the jurors, is to be involved in your deliberations. Therefore, do not tell anyone, including me, how many of you are voting not guilty or guilty until you have reached a lawful verdict or have been discharged. As to the charge of Murder in the First Degree in Counts or 2, or to the lesser included offense of Murder in the Second Degree, each and every juror must agree on the verdict of guilty to return a verdict of guilty of Murder in the First Degree or Murder in the Second Degree. Ten or more jurors must agree on the verdict of not guilty to return a verdict of not guilty of Murder in the First Degree or Murder in the Second Degree. For each of the other charges, ten or more jurors must agree to the verdict. So, whether your verdict is not guilty or guilty, at least ten of you must agree on that verdict for that count. If you are divided nine to three, for example, you do not have a verdict on those charges. When you have arrived at a verdict, the presiding juror will complete and sign the appropriate verdict form. After you have reached your verdict, signal the bailiff. The court will then receive your verdict. V. CHRISTIAN PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE Preponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of the evidence. It is such evidence that, when weighed with that opposed to it, is more probably true than false. THREAT TO INF LICT SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY A "threat to inflict serious physical injury" for purposes of intimidation in the second degree must be an unequivocal threat to in?ict serious physical injury upon another person. It must also be objectively likely that the threat would be followed by unlawful acts. Those characteristics of a threat exclude the kind of hyperbole, rhetorical excesses, and impotent expressions of anger or frustration that in some contexts may alarm the addressee. The court has provided written instructions for your use. When you use these instructions, do not place undue emphasis on any particular instruction, but rather View the instructions as a whole.