the trial court erred in instructing the jury as it did. Nor was the error harmless. Although the instruction did not specifically refer to Auger’s testimony or Kinkade’s statement, the trial court made clear to counsel that the instruction applied to that evidence. Therefore, defendant’s counsel was precluded from making a particularly forceful point in support of the defense theory in closing argument, namely, that Auger’s testimony constituted substantive evidence that all of the charges against defendant were fabricated. The jury found defendant not guilty on two of the three charges brought against him. We cannot say that the erroneous instruction did not influence the jury’s guilty verdict on the harassment charge. See State v. Powell, 74 Or App 334, 337, 703 P2d 257 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Reversed and remanded for new trial. 1
holding that the giving of the presumption of impairment instruction was harmless error when there is sufficient evidence of actual impairment such that there is no doubt that the jury would have found impairment even without the erroneous instruction holding that a party waived an allegation that an instruction was erroneous where the party failed to object at trial to the instruction on those grounds holding that unless an erroneous instruction was unlikely to have changed the result of the trial a reviewing court cannot say that giving the instruction was harmless error holding that the trial court erred by giving a misleading instruction holding that the giving of an erroneous reasonable doubt instruction can never be harmless error