State v. Ramoz

Summary

The court held that a trial court may grant a new trial under ORCP 64 B(1) for an instructional irregularity that denied the defendant a fair trial, even when the defendant did not object to the instructions. The court further held that harmlessness is reviewed for legal error and concluded that omitting the knowingly element from the list of elements the state had to prove was not harmless. The Court of Appeals was therefore reversed and the circuit court's order granting a new trial was affirmed.