Background
Dustin Lee Olmsted faced two separate criminal cases consolidated on appeal. In the first (24CR07285), a jury convicted him of unlawful possession of 10 or more grams of methamphetamine. At trial, the court gave the uniform jury instruction on inferences (UCrJI 1008) along with instructions on the presumption of innocence and the state’s burden of proof, but declined to give Olmsted’s proposed special instruction on inferences. Olmsted argued both rulings were error.
In the second case (24CR04578), Olmsted entered a guilty plea to driving under the influence of intoxicants. At sentencing, the trial court did not orally announce a per diem fee, but the written judgment included a provision requiring Olmsted to pay such fees. Olmsted appealed that discrepancy.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the drug conviction in full. Relying on State v. Thomas, 324 Or App 114 (2023), the court held that giving the uniform inference instruction alongside correct burden-of-proof instructions did not lessen the state’s burden of proof. It further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Olmsted’s proposed special instruction because the uniform instructions adequately covered the subject matter — even assuming the proposed instruction was a correct statement of law, a trial court need not give it when the issue is already adequately addressed.
On the DUII sentencing issue, the state conceded error, and the court agreed. Because the per diem fee was included in the written judgment without being announced at sentencing, the trial court committed reversible error. The court remanded Case No. 24CR04578 for resentencing, citing the defendant’s right to have a sentence announced in open court, as recognized in State v. Priester, 325 Or App 574 (2023), and State v. Barr, 331 Or App 242 (2024).
Key Takeaways
- The uniform Oregon jury instruction on inferences (UCrJI 1008) does not impermissibly lessen the state’s burden of proof when the jury is also correctly instructed on that burden, foreclosing a common trial-level challenge.
- A trial court has discretion to decline a defendant’s proposed special jury instruction if the uniform instructions adequately cover the same legal ground, even if the proposed instruction is a correct statement of law.
- Oregon criminal defendants have a right to have every sentencing term — including fees — announced in open court; a fee appearing only in the written judgment without oral pronouncement is reversible error requiring resentencing.
Why It Matters
This nonprecedential decision reinforces established Oregon appellate doctrine on jury instructions and sentencing procedure. Defense counsel should note that challenges to UCrJI 1008 remain foreclosed by Thomas, while prosecutors and trial courts are reminded that all financial obligations must be orally pronounced at sentencing — omitting even a per diem fee from the oral pronouncement will send a case back for resentencing.
Although the opinion carries no precedential weight under ORAP 10.30, it illustrates the Oregon Court of Appeals’ consistent application of the open-court sentencing rule and signals that the state will readily concede such errors rather than defend them on appeal.