Background
Nicholas Andrew Pleasure was charged with seven offenses arising from a series of alleged domestic assaults against his then-girlfriend, S. A jury acquitted him of several charges but convicted him of second-degree assault constituting domestic violence, strangulation constituting domestic violence, and fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence.
The convictions arose from an altercation in which Pleasure slapped S, causing her head to strike a wall, and later forced her face-down on a floor, gripped her neck, and struck her head against the floor. S testified that the grip reduced her breathing by 20 percent, caused her vision to turn “white and black,” altered her hearing, and left her with neck swelling, painful swallowing, a hoarse voice, and a dry cough. At trial, the court also allowed the state to impeach Pleasure with a prior misdemeanor conviction for fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence and declined his requested witness-false-in-part instruction concerning S’s reports of her pain levels.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Construing ORS 163.187, it held that strangulation does not require total blockage of airflow or circulation, and the statute imposes no fixed percentage threshold. A factfinder may consider partial breathing impairment together with evidence of circulatory impairment and other symptoms. S’s reduced breathing, visual and hearing changes, and physical injuries supplied sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find strangulation beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court also held that OEC 403 balancing was not required before admitting Pleasure’s qualifying misdemeanor domestic-violence conviction as impeachment evidence under OEC 609(2). It concluded that the Oregon Supreme Court’s reasoning in State v. Aranda applies to OEC 609 as a whole and, independently, extends to OEC 609(2).
Finally, the court held that the trial court properly refused the witness-false-in-part instruction. Although S reported lower pain levels at the hospital than at other times, she had received fentanyl and oxycodone before the hospital assessment. Even when viewed favorably to Pleasure, the evidence did not reasonably support a finding that S had consciously testified falsely about a material issue.
Key Takeaways
- Oregon’s strangulation statute can be satisfied by partial impairment of normal breathing or blood circulation; complete obstruction is unnecessary.
- No fixed percentage determines when impairment becomes strangulation, and factfinders may consider symptoms suggesting both respiratory and circulatory effects.
- Qualifying misdemeanor domestic-violence convictions admitted for impeachment under OEC 609(2) do not require OEC 403 balancing.
- A witness-false-in-part instruction requires evidence supporting conscious falsehood on a material issue, not merely differing statements reasonably explained by circumstances such as pain medication.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that Oregon strangulation prosecutions do not turn on proof of complete asphyxiation or a particular percentage of lost airflow. Prosecutors may rely on the totality of the evidence, including sensory changes and physical symptoms that permit an inference of impaired circulation.
The opinion also extends the Oregon Supreme Court’s treatment of impeachment convictions to misdemeanor domestic-violence offenses under OEC 609(2), limiting defendants’ ability to demand case-specific OEC 403 balancing when they testify.