STATE v. HALL (2020)

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-of-property 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, 290 Or. App. 121, 125, 415 P.3d 83 (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.

PER CURIAM