## Facts

- Leonard Contreras Sandoval shot and killed Whitcraft, his ex-wife’s partner, after prior combative interactions between them.
- The shooting occurred on a road both men frequently traveled.
- Sandoval told police that Whitcraft backed his truck into Sandoval’s truck, then turned and aimed a pistol at him.
- Sandoval retrieved a rifle from his vehicle, opened his truck door, and fired one shot at Whitcraft.
- The bullet entered Whitcraft’s skull behind his left ear, killing him instantly; Whitcraft’s pistol was found under his body, loaded and cocked.
- The prosecution contested self-defense, presenting evidence that Sandoval ambushed and provoked Whitcraft, aimed a rifle at him, and shot when Whitcraft reached for his gun.
- At trial, over objection, the court instructed that deadly force in self-defense was justified only if “unavoidable” and if there was “no opportunity to escape and no other means of avoiding the combat.”
- The jury convicted Sandoval of intentional murder; the intermediate appellate court affirmed without opinion.

## Issues

1. Whether instructing that deadly force in self-defense is justified only if “unavoidable” and if there was “no opportunity to escape and no other means of avoiding the combat” misstated Oregon self-defense law by imposing a retreat requirement.
2. If erroneous, whether the instruction was harmless given the trial record.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the intermediate appellate court and the murder conviction and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the “unavoidable/no opportunity to escape” instruction misstated Oregon self-defense law by effectively requiring retreat before using deadly force.
- The court held the instructional error was not harmless because self-defense was central to the case and the improper language could have affected the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Oregon’s self-defense statutes permit the use of deadly force when the defendant reasonably believes it necessary to defend against another’s use or imminent use of deadly physical force; the statutes do not impose a general duty to retreat.
- Jury instructions on justification defenses must not add requirements beyond those stated in the governing statutes.
- Instructional error is not harmless when there is a substantial possibility the jury could have rejected the defense based on an incorrect legal limitation, particularly where the defense theory is a central issue at trial.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that Oregon self-defense law does not require a person to exhaust escape options before using otherwise justified deadly force, and that a jury instruction conditioning justification on “unavoidability” and “no opportunity to escape” improperly narrowed the defense and required reversal because it may have influenced the jury’s rejection of self-defense.


State v. Sandoval, 342 Or. 506, 156 P.3d 60 (Or. 2007)