State v. N. R.

── State v. N. R. ── Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon Date: May 13, 2026 Author: Jacquot Category: General 630 May 13, 2026 No. 420 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of N. R., a Youth. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. N. R., Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 23JU03426; Petition Number 230526044; A185588 Francis G. Troy II, Judge. Submitted April 15, 2026. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Joel C. Duran, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Interim Deputy Attorney General, and Erica L. Herb, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. JACQUOT, J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 349 Or App 630 (2026) 631 JACQUOT, J. Youth appeals from a judgment ordering him to serve nine months of probation after the court determined that his conduct, if committed by an adult, would have con- stituted fourth-degree assault.1 Youth argues that the juve- nile court applied two incorrect legal standards regarding his defense of others defense; application of the erroneous legal standards constituted harmful error, and thus, the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional determi- nations were improper. The state responds that the court applied the correct legal standards. For the reasons pro- vided below, we affirm. The underlying incident at issue in this case was a fight that occurred between several eighth-grade class- mates. K and S were initial aggressors in a fight against T. At one point, K and S were moving away from T. At that point, youth approached T from the side. Youth slammed his fist or arm into the side of T’s head and then immediately sprinted away. Youth argued to the juvenile court that he acted lawfully in defense of S or K, because he believed S and K had withdrawn from the fight and that T was going to punch one or both of them in the back. The prosecutor argued that youth did not act in defense of another. The state argued that S and K would not have had a lawful right to defend themselves, because they were the initial aggressors. The state argued, therefore, that youth did not have a right to defend S or K. Rather, in the state’s view, T had a lawful right to defend himself against any further attack by S or K. The state additionally argued that the degree of force used by youth was not “reasonably necessary.” The court determined that the state rebutted youth’s theory of defense beyond a reasonable doubt. We review this challenge, like we would a challenge to jury instructions, for legal error.2 State v. Butterfield, 332 1 Youth also appeals from a restitution judgment but does not raise any chal- lenges regarding that judgment. 2 Both the state and youth submitted jury instructions to the court and the record indicates that the court reviewed them. 632 State v. N. R. Or App 526, 533-34, 549 P3d 545 (2024). When an individ- ual raises a defense of another defense, the state has the burden of disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 530. “[A] person is justified in using physical force upon another person * * * to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlaw- ful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonabl