State v. Borovets
Borovets
Citation
341 Or. App. 104
Court
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Importance
45%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
104 June 4, 2025 No. 497 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANATOLIY M. BOROVETS, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 20CR39111; A181742 Celia A. Howes, Judge. Submitted May 15, 2025. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Shawn Wiley, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Hellman, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. TOOKEY, P. J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 104 (2025) 105 TOOKEY, P. J. Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for one count of first-degree manslaughter, ORS 163.118; one count of failure to perform duties of a driver, ORS 811.705; one count of driving while suspended, ORS 811.182; and one count of reckless driving, ORS 811.140. Defendant raises two assignments of error. In the first, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal of first-degree manslaugh- ter, because the evidence was insufficient for the jury to conclude that he acted “under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life[.]” ORS 163.118(1)(a) (defining first-degree manslaughter). In the second, defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s wife’s testimony about a statement by the victim under the hearsay exception for excited utter- ances. See OEC 803(2) (describing that exception to the hearsay rule in OEC 802). We conclude that the evidence in the record was sufficient for the jury to conclude that defendant’s conduct manifested an extreme indifference to the value of human life, and that any error in admitting the challenged state- ment was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm defendant’s convictions. In his first assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court “erred in denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal” of first-degree manslaughter. Although “defendant does not dispute on appeal that he drove recklessly,” he argues that “the state failed to prove that he did so under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.” Conduct manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life is an essential element of the crime of first-degree manslaughter. ORS 163.118(1)(a). “This court reviews questions of the sufficiency of the evidence in a crim- inal case following a conviction by examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether a rational trier of fact, accepting reasonable inferences and reasonable credibility choices, could have found the essential 106 State v. Borovets element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63, 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den, 514 US 1005 (1995). “[E]xtreme indifference to the value of human life means ‘a state of mind where an individual cares little about the risk of death of a human being.’ ” State v. Cook, 163 Or App 578, 583, 989 P2d 474 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]t describes a level of recklessness that is charac- terized by a willingness to commit an extremely dangerous act and an indifference as to whether that act could cause the death of another human being.” State v. Ruiz, 333 Or App 565, 566, 553 P3d 60, rev den, 373 Or 121 (2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]o determine whether a defen- dant’s conduct manifests * * * extreme indifference, this court considers circumstances surrounding the conduct that inform the nature of the risk to human life involved and the extent to which a defendant consciously disregarded that risk, * * * including the circumstances before, during, and after the resulting injury or death.” State v. Giron-Cortez, 372 Or 729, 741-42, 557 P3d 505 (2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). Having reviewed the evidence in the record, in the light most favorable to the state, we conclude that it was legally sufficient for the jury to determine, accepting rea- sonable inferences and credibility choices, that defendant’s conduct manifested an extreme indifference to the value of human life. The evidence includes the following. On the night of the incident, defendant drove 50 to 77 miles per hour in a 35-miles per hour speed limit zone in wet conditions. The crash occurred when defendant revved his eng
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
Case Name: State v. Borovets
Citation: 341 Or. App. 104
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Date: June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction: SA
In the case of State v. Borovets, the Court of Appeals of Oregon reviewed the conviction of Anatoliy M. Borovets for first-degree manslaughter, along with charges of failure to perform duties of a driver, driving while suspended, and reckless driving. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, addressing two primary assignments of error raised by the defendant.
Key Legal Issues
- Sufficiency of Evidence for Manslaughter
- Did the trial court err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal regarding first-degree manslaughter?
- Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence
- Was the victim's wife's testimony regarding the victim's statement admissible under the excited utterance exception?
Court's Decision
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that:
- The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Borovets acted with extreme indifference to human life.
- Any error in admitting the victim's wife's testimony was harmless and did not affect the outcome of the trial.
Legal Reasoning
First Assignment of Error: Manslaughter Acquittal
The court analyzed whether Borovets's conduct met the legal definition of extreme indifference to the value of human life as required by ORS 163.118(1)(a). The court emphasized:
- The standard for reviewing evidence is whether a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Extreme indifference implies a state of mind where an individual shows little regard for the risk of death to others.
The court noted that evidence included:
- Driving at speeds between 50 to 77 mph in a 35 mph zone under wet conditions.
- Running a red light and crashing through various obstacles, resulting in the passenger being ejected from the vehicle.
- The defendant's actions post-crash, including fleeing the scene and questioning a witness about the victim's status.
Second Assignment of Error: Hearsay Admission
Regarding the hearsay statement made by the victim to his wife, the court found:
- Even if the statement was inadmissible, its admission did not substantially affect the defendant's rights, thus qualifying as harmless error.
- The court referenced State v. Miller, emphasizing that errors must be evaluated in the context of the entire record.
Key Holdings
- The evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction for first-degree manslaughter.
- The trial court's denial of the motion for acquittal was upheld.
- Admission of the victim's wife's testimony was deemed harmless and did not warrant reversal of the conviction.
Precedents and Citations
- State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47 (1994) - Standards for sufficiency of evidence.
- State v. Cook, 163 Or App 578 (1999) - Definition of extreme indifference.
- State v. Miller, 327 Or App 740 (2023) - Harmless error doctrine.
Practical Implications
The ruling in State v. Borovets underscores the importance of:
- Understanding the thresholds for proving extreme indifference in manslaughter cases.
- Recognizing the implications of hearsay evidence and the potential for harmless error in criminal proceedings.
Legal practitioners should note the court's emphasis on the totality of circumstances surrounding a defendant's actions when evaluating the sufficiency of evidence in similar cases. This case serves as a critical reference for future manslaughter and reckless driving cases in Oregon, particularly regarding the standards for judgment of acquittal and the treatment of excited utterances under the hearsay rule.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools