Derek Mitchell Shine was charged with multiple crimes in Washington County Circuit Court, where Judge Andrew R. Erwin provided jury instructions at both the beginning and end of the trial. After the close of evidence, the court declined to reread five pages of instructions covering the presumption of innocence, burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and a defendant's right not to testify, telling the jury those instructions had been read 'last week' and were available for reference in writing. Defense counsel objected, arguing the court was required to orally restate all critical legal principles before deliberations.
Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Garrett held that Oregon Rule of Civil Procedure 59B mandates that trial courts provide a complete oral 'charge' at trial's end. As Justice Garrett explained, 'ORCP 59 B requires the trial court to 'charge' the jury at the conclusion of trial by providing an oral statement of 'all matters of law necessary for its information in giving its verdict.'' The court found that preliminary instructions cannot substitute for the final charge, emphasizing that 'whatever instructions the court chooses to provide at the beginning of the trial must be in addition to, and not a substitute for, the complete oral statement that ORCP 59 B requires at the end.'
The court rejected the state's argument that timing was discretionary, delivering sharp criticism of that interpretation: 'The state's argument that 'charge' has no temporal meaning is based largely on its premise that ORCP 58 B affords the trial court 'broad discretion' over the sequence of trial and the timing of jury instructions in particular. From that premise, the state reasons that ORCP 59 B, to be consistent with ORCP 58 B, must not be concerned with timing at all, but only with content. We disagree.'
The case originated when Shine was convicted on all counts after the trial court's selective reading of final instructions. On appeal, Shine argued the incomplete oral charge violated ORCP 59B, while the state contended that different procedural rules gave courts discretion over instruction timing. The Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with Shine and reversed for a new trial, prompting the state to seek review from the Oregon Supreme Court.
The state had argued unsuccessfully that because all necessary instructions were provided to the jury either orally or in writing at some point during the trial, any error in timing was harmless. Justice Garrett dismissed this reasoning, noting that 'timing matters' and citing research on 'recency bias'—the tendency for people to 'remember best, and be influenced most, by the latest event in a sequence.' The court also emphasized that the omitted instructions 'were important instructions that protect defendants' constitutional rights,' making the error particularly significant given that Shine did not testify and relied entirely on arguing the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court grounded its interpretation in both dictionary definitions and the historical understanding of jury charges. Justice Garrett noted that Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines 'charge' as 'the statement made by the judge to the jury at the close of a trial of the principles of law that the latter are bound to apply to the facts.' The court also examined the legislative history of Oregon's procedural rules, finding that amendments in 2000 were intended to require preliminary instructions 'in addition to, rather than as a substitute for, the final jury charge at the close of the case.'
In finding the error was not harmless, the court emphasized the unique function of the final oral charge beyond mere information delivery. As Justice Garrett wrote, quoting the Ninth Circuit: 'When an enrobed judge orally charges the jury, the jurors are impressed with the fact that they have been entrusted with the power to decide the defendant's fate. This oral, public ritual helps ensure that jurors recognize the enormity of their task and take that task seriously.' The ruling clarifies that party arguments during closing cannot substitute for judicial instructions, and that written instructions alone are insufficient to meet the procedural requirements.
The decision affirms the Court of Appeals reversal and remands for a new trial. The ruling provides clear guidance for Oregon trial courts on jury instruction timing and emphasizes that while 'split' instructions are permitted and even required by the rules, preliminary instructions must supplement, not replace, the complete final charge to the jury.