QuickTake:

Elijah Pruitt had been sentenced to life in prison in the death of Fernando Giffen-Vallejo, after a shooting at the Fat Shack on 13th Avenue. The Oregon Court of Appeals has now ruled that a prosecutor prejudiced the jury.

The state’s appellate court on Wednesday, Aug. 20, reversed the conviction of a Eugene man sentenced to life in prison after a shooting death near the University of Oregon campus.

A jury in September 2023 convicted Elijah Pruitt, now 22, of second-degree murder, along with other charges, in the death of 19-year-old Fernando Giffen-Vallejo.

The Oregon Court of Appeals remanded the case back to Lane County Circuit Court for a new trial, with Pruitt remaining in prison.

In granting Pruitt’s appeal, the state appellate court found fault with statements made before the jury by a prosecutor with the Lane County District Attorney’s office, calling them “highly likely to prejudice the jury.”

Lane County District Attorney Christopher Parosa on Thursday said no decision has been made about retrying Pruitt or appealing the decision.

“We are in the process of evaluating the decision and talking with the Oregon Department of Justice about the prospects of appealing the decision,” Parosa said in an email.

If the appellate court decision stands, the Lane County court will decide Pruitt’s release status, said Kyle Krohn, senior deputy public defender with the Oregon Public Defense Commission.

The Court of Appeals’ ruling agreed with arguments raised by Krohn and defense attorney Ernest G. Lannet that statements by a prosecutor in front of the jury “insinuated that the state could have charged [the] defendant with more serious crimes,” thereby denying Pruitt a fair trial.

On March 14, 2023, Pruitt, while working as an evening shift supervisor at the Fat Shack restaurant at East 13th Avenue and Patterson Street, confronted Giffen-Vallejo, a customer, twice on the night of the shooting, according to the appellate court ruling.

After the first confrontation, Giffen-Vallejo “returned to the restaurant and started graffitiing the walls outside with spray paint,” the appellate ruling states. The shooting happened after Pruitt went outside and an argument with Giffen-Vallejo “became physically violent,” the appellate ruling states.

In addition to Giffen-Vallejo being shot, two bystanders were wounded, the court document states.

During closing arguments before the jury, “the prosecutor started to discuss the different levels of homicide under Oregon law, including aggravated murder,” the appellate ruling states.

The judge in the case overruled an objection by the defense attorney, stating in court that the prosecutor “is putting this criminal level in context, and I will allow him to do that.”

The appellate court found that the prosecutor, by then bringing up a conversation between Pruitt and a co-worker, “indicated that the conversation … implied that defendant acted with premeditation.” Pruitt had asserted that his actions were in self-defense, which the appellate court called “relevant context” in its finding that the prosecutor’s “improper argument” undermined Pruitt’s defense in court.

Court records show that Lane County Circuit Judge Debra Vogt presided over the case, with Erik Hasselman prosecuting the case.

The appellate court opinion was designated as a precedential opinion. Under rules for appellate procedure in Oregon, factors in determining whether a judicial opinion is precedential include whether “the opinion establishes a new principle or rule of law or clarifies existing case law.”

Parosa said Hasselman no longer works for the district attorney’s office.

“As to the court’s statements regarding the propriety of Mr. Hasselman’s argument, we disagree with the court’s decision and would note that this decision marks a change of law in the state of Oregon created by the Court of Appeals,” Parosa said in an email.