Background
In this consolidated criminal appeal, Justin Lee Teeman challenged rulings in two of three cases. After a bench trial in Case No. 23CR41259, he was convicted of harassment constituting domestic violence, two counts of second-degree assault, felony fourth-degree assault, and harassment. After a no-contest plea in Case No. 24CR04237, he was convicted of second-degree burglary and first-degree theft. In Case No. 22CR56140, the circuit court revoked his probation.
The principal issues arose from an assault on S. The state alleged that Teeman caused serious physical injury and used a deadly weapon. The evidence showed an orbital fracture, bruising, and a bloodshot eye, but did not establish pain, vision loss, recovery time, or S’s condition during the following weeks and months. Although the indictment alleged use of a deadly weapon, the trial court found Teeman guilty on the theory that he used a dangerous weapon. Teeman also challenged the designation of another harassment conviction as constituting domestic violence and the inclusion of per diem fees in the judgments.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the “serious physical injury” required for Count 8, second-degree assault, and Count 10, third-degree assault. Even assuming the assault caused an orbital fracture and temporarily impaired S’s health, the record did not permit a reasonable finding that the impairment was protracted. The court therefore reversed the Count 8 conviction and the entry of the guilty verdict on Count 10.
The court also reversed the Count 9 second-degree-assault conviction. The indictment alleged injury by means of a deadly weapon, but the trial court found that Teeman used a dangerous weapon. That variance concerned a material element and was impermissible. The appellate court concluded that Teeman neither invited the error nor failed to preserve the issue because the trial court independently identified, researched, and expressly ruled on the variance. It further reversed the domestic-violence designation on Count 2 because the indictment did not plead that allegation, directing entry of a conviction for harassment. Case No. 23CR41259 was remanded for resentencing and otherwise affirmed. Case No. 24CR04237 was remanded for resentencing because of improperly imposed per diem fees and otherwise affirmed. The probation-revocation judgment in Case No. 22CR56140 was affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence of a fracture and visible bruising, without evidence about duration, symptoms, recovery, or functional effects, did not establish protracted impairment and therefore was insufficient to prove serious physical injury.
- A finding that an assault involved a dangerous weapon could not support a conviction under an indictment that alleged only a deadly weapon, because the variance altered a material element.
- A variance issue may be preserved without a contemporaneous objection when the trial court independently identifies, researches, and fully rules on it and the policies underlying preservation have been satisfied.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that the seriousness of an apparent injury does not alone establish “serious physical injury” under Oregon law; the state must present evidence supporting the required protracted effect. It also reinforces that courts may not convict on an alternative statutory theory when the indictment’s narrower allegation defines a material element.
The opinion additionally illustrates that preservation is a functional inquiry. When a trial court squarely identifies and decides an issue on a developed record, appellate review may be available even without a formal objection after the ruling.