542
Submitted June 5, reversed and remanded July 15, 2020
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL SCOTT HALL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Clackamas County Circuit Court
18CR60245; A169964
Katherine E. Weber, Judge.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Mark Kimbrell, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin
Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge,
and Aoyagi, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Reversed and remanded.
Cite as
305 Or App 542
(2020) 543
PER CURIAM
Defendant, who was convicted after a jury trial of
two counts of menacing, argues that the trial court erred in
admitting evidence of his use of methamphetamine the day
before the incident at issue—an altercation between defendant and others with whom he was in a property dispute,
during which defendant threatened them with an inoperable firearm. Defendant raised self-defense and defense-ofproperty defenses. The state introduced evidence that defendant had used methamphetamine the day before the altercation, arguing it was relevant to whether defendant’s actions
were “reasonable” for purposes of those defenses. On appeal,
the state concedes that that evidence of defendant’s past
drug use is irrelevant to an assessment of reasonableness
for purposes of self-defense or defense of property. See State
v. Hollingsworth,
(2018)
(“reasonableness” for purposes of such defenses “must be
assessed under an objective standard that does not depend
on the defendant’s personal characteristics”). We agree and
accept the state’s concession. Further discussion of the
underlying facts of the case would not benefit the bench, the
bar, or the public.
Reversed and remanded.
