This document summarizes a case from the Oregon Court of Appeals regarding an assault. The defendant bit off part of the victim's ear during a physical altercation. The defendant appealed his convictions of first-degree assault and second-degree assault. The court overturned the first-degree conviction, finding that one's own teeth cannot be considered a dangerous weapon under the law. They upheld the second-degree conviction, determining there was sufficient evidence that the victim suffered a serious physical injury as defined by the missing and disfigured ear requiring a prosthetic. The summary provides an overview of the facts, issues, decisions, and reasoning of the court.

1. Sample State of the Conversation Report
First Name Last Name
Professor (last name here)
ENG102-D
Day Month Year
State of the Conversation: Orca Captivity
I. Overview of the Issue
The topic at hand is the captivity of orcas in institutions like
SeaWorld. This issue has been popularized recently because of
the documentary, Blackfish, which sets out to build opposition
to whale captivity. Orca captivity involves many stakeholders,
including trainers, business executives, park visitors, and, of
course, the orcas themselves. The ethics and dangers behind
orca captivity are what make this topic controversial, especially
in light of trainer deaths, specifically that of Dawn Brancheau,
which is addressed in Blackfish and various other sources on
the issue. These scandals also prompted the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) to begin a legal battle with
SeaWorld over orca captivity, a case that might change this
institution permanently. Due to these current events, as well as
the basic nature of the issue which involves a mesmerizing
animal and its proposed right to freedom, the topic of orca
captivity is one that captivates and demands debate.
II. Specific Guiding Question
I decided to research the question “Should orcas be kept in
captivity?” Researching orca captivity in depth interested me,
personally, because I consider myself a lover of animals and,
being spurred by watching the previously mentioned
documentary, I came to question whether orcas should be in
captivity, at all. Ultimately, the case against orca captivity far
outweighed the institution’s benefits, prompting me to take the
stance of anti-captivity.
III. Available Materials

2. When researching the topic of orca captivity, a variety of
sources are available. Print materials are beneficial for a
credible source of information; though, in Mississippi College’s
Leland Speed Library, print sources on orca captivity,
specifically, are not plentiful. For printed books, it may be
necessary for the researcher to visit multiple libraries.
Databases are also helpful with this topic to access more
credible, scholarly information on orca captivity. Academic
Search Premier, an EBSCO database, can be useful because it
pulls from a variety of sources. When researching the topic, it is
important to search for “orca captivity,” including the quotation
marks because this provides more relevant sources more
efficiently. The general web is another excellent way of
obtaining sources for research, though it is important to be wary
of what sites a researcher draws her information from. It is
usually more effective to access accredited sites like National
Geographic and PBS, which both have relevant information on
the subject. In addition, one of the single most helpful sources
is the documentary Blackfish, which can be found on Netflix as
well as in some libraries. This source is both relevant and
entertaining, though the researcher should note its potential
bias. Information on orca captivity is plentiful, though one
potential challenge is finding sources that speak unbiasedly
towards the issue.
IV. Positions
While researching orca captivity, three distinctive positions or
viewpoints on the issue became clear: captivity harms whales,
can put trainers in dangers, and, despite these issues, some
possible benefits of captivity can be noted. These groupings are
mainly based on the stakeholders that are involved, and each
can be broken down into further categories.
A. Captivity Harms Whales
The research clearly indicates that captivity causes both
physical and mental harm to orca whales. Due to conditions of
captivity, research specifies problems with dorsal fins, teeth,
mortality, and whale-on-whale aggression as examples of

3. physical harm. Several sources mention that one result is a
collapsed dorsal fin in male orcas in captivity. In Blackfish, a
former SeaWorld trainer expounds that “‘less than one percent’
of orcas in the wild have a collapsed dorsal fin, yet one hundred
percent of male orcas at SeaWorld have taken on this feature”
(Blackfish). David Kirby’s book Death at SeaWorld expands on
the issue, attributing the cause to the pattern and surface
swimming that occurs in pools, but not in the wild, as well as
warmer temperatures (Kirby 179). Another aspect source
mention of physical harm is the damage to the captive orcas
teeth, which become cracked due to tank life, including the
whales eating concrete and metals, and are then subject to
routine flushings (Kirby 181). Blackfish also features this
problem, showing visuals of the teeth treatment, which the
source describes as “endoscopy” (Blackfish). The research also
addresses the mortality of whales in captivity. The article
“Towards a New Paradigm of Non-Captive Research On
Cetacean Cognition” defines “the average lifespan for male and
female orcas [in the wild] [as] 29.2 and 50.2 years, respectively,
with a maximum longevity of 60 to 90 years, respectively”
(Marino). These numbers show an obvious discrepancy between
captive orcas, which live “[not] much past the age of 20 years,”
(Marino) which is a fact that the majority of sources concur
with. Blackfish and Death at SeaWorld also introduce the idea
that SeaWorld is providing false information on the lifespan of
wild orcas in order for data to align with its own orca mortality
rates (Blackfish); however, on its webpage “The Truth About
Blackfish,” SeaWorld combats the notion, saying lifespans of
wild and captive whales are “comparable,” while still noting
that “studies continue to define the average lifespan of killer
whales in the wild” (“The Truth About Blackfish”). Of course,
this take does seem to confirm the other sources’ allegations. In
addition, various sources focus on physical harm that results
from fights among whales in captivity. Blackfish suggests that
“hyperaggression” is a result of tension in captivity, causing
violence most often due to whales attempting to “assert

4. dominance” over each other (Blackfish). The National
Geographic article, featuring an interview with a former trainer,
further questions this issue, addressing the role of unfit tank
size as a cause of fights among whales. Former trainer Bridgette
Pirtle asks, “if something social happens and an animal
displaces the other, where are they going to go?” including that
orcas “are extremely socially sensitive” (Lee). According to
several sources, whale-on-whale aggression happens often, and
the problem lies in the whales being unable to remove
themselves from the situation like they would in the wild.
Physical harm, including, but not limited to, collapsed dorsal
fins, damaged teeth, mortality discrepancies, and fights among
whales is a consequence of orca captivity.
The sources suggest that harm done to orcas in captivity is
not limited to merely physical; mental trauma is a consequence,
too. One source of this kind of harm results from false social
groupings, as several sources report. In Lori Marino’s article,
“Towards a New Paradigm of Non-Captive Research On
Cetacean Cognition,” whales are described as having “complex
societies with dynamic social roles in intricate social networks”
(Marino). Captivity, sources suggest, extracts the animals from
these natural relationships into forced families, which a trainer
in Blackfish compares to being “not just...different killer
whales,” but “different nations” (Blackfish). The gathered
information concludes that this aspect of life in captivity causes
mental stress to the animal, which can manifest itself in
physical problems like decreased immunity and lifespan
(Marino). It is also important to note the differing viewpoints
on this subject of social structure, particularly coming from
SeaWorld itself. On its website, which combats the documentary
Blackfish, which is included as a source for research, SeaWorld
reports that its parks have respect for the orca social
composition, and adhere to zoological standards (“The Truth
About Blackfish”). Another cause of mental harm to orcas in
captivity stems from the separation of mother and calf which
sometimes occurs in parks. This disunion takes place for

5. reasons varying from show disruption to logistical grounds
(Blackfish). Here, again sources contradict. On its webpage,
SeaWorld explicitly states, “we do not separate killer whale
moms and calves” (“The Truth About Blackfish”). In any case,
this kind of separation, as Marino’s article communicates,
would cause distress due to the strong bonds orcas have with
one another (Marino). Research deduces that the mental harm
that is a result of captivity includes stress, which is a
consequence of an imbalance in the intricate social structures of
the whales.
As indicated by the sources mentioned, both physical and
mental harm is a result of whale captivity, and is just one of the
positions involved with this subject.
B. Danger for Trainers
Another facet of orca captivity is the consequences entailed for
the trainers that interact with these animals. Dangerous
interactions with orcas involve both aggression and, more
severely, death. Research details the many counts of whale
aggression against trainers. In Blackfish and Kirby’s Death at
SeaWorld, these instances are highlighted, depicting the danger
that trainers face when in the water or in close proximity with
these animals. Also, several sources detail how much pressure is
on the trainer to do well, alongside the job being “extremely
physically demanding” (Lee). Blackfish is in agreement with
this view, also depicting the accidents that can occur when a
taxing work environment meets unpredictable animals
(Blackfish). Blackfish expands on Lee’s article, giving an
anecdote of a trainer at Loro Parque in Spain who, because of
exacting work conditions and lax safety precautions, died on the
job in an instance of whale aggression (Blackfish). In addition,
many sources focus on the deaths of SeaWorld trainer Dawn
Brancheau and Sea Land employee Keltie Byrne. The research
makes the case that orcas should not be in captivity because of
the dangers involved for the trainers that work with them.
C. Benefits of Captivity
While much of the research focuses on the negative

6. consequences of orca captivity, a select few are devoted to
defending the case for captivity. Reasons the sources gave for
captivity were the benefits made to both whales and society
through the institution. One source claims that, through
institutions like SeaWorld, further conservation efforts are
made to benefit whales in captivity and the wild (Andrews). In
the Frontline interview, SeaWorld executives report that
“funding...for...research and conservation is coming from
[zoological parks]” (Andrews). This source concludes that
parks’ financial gains help orcas when it comes to scientific
research and conservation. Pro-captivity sources also detail how
society is improved because of whale captivity. “A Whale of a
Business” introduces the idea of keeping the public interested
and educated about orcas via captivity, insisting “if [we] want a
public that’s knowledgeable about wild animals and has some
sensitivity about them, if we want our children to have a chance
to see...these animals, it’s [going to] have to be in places like
SeaWorld” (Andrews). This research gathers that institutions of
orca captivity provide both the funding for conservation means,
as well as serve to educate the public, which benefits both the
whales themselves and society as a whole.
The research on orca captivity was grouped mainly on the
viewpoints of three stakeholders of orca captivity: the whales,
the trainers, and the institutions who depict the benefits of
captivity. Each source seeks to inform, and sometimes persuade,
the case for or against orca captivity.
V. Conclusion
Especially in light of its history with culture and its recent
spotlight in the news, orca captivity is a popular issue, and it is
subject to many sources of research. Much of this research is
dedicated to make the case for ending the institution, citing
injury to both whale and trainers as reasons to stop captivity.
Captivity at places like SeaWorld can result in physical and
mental harm to orcas, as well as put trainers at risk of injury or
death caused by animal aggression. However, several sources
still stand to defend orca captivity, describing it as having

7. benefits to the orcas and society. Therefore, while some would
say that the negatives of orca captivity far outweigh its
positives, the case for its benefits still exist, making orca
captivity not simply a black and white tale.
State v. Kuperus
Court of Appeals of Oregon
2011 Ore. App. Lexis 396 (2011)
Facts:
The defendant, Scott Russell Kuperus, II, and the victim were
engaged in a physical altercation when the defendant bit off a
segment of the victim’s ear. There is a noticeable scar where the
missing part of the ear should be and the victim needs to wear a
prosthetic device.
The defendant was charged with first-degree assault and second-
degree assault. Defendant requested that he be acquitted on both
charges. Defendant disputed that teeth are not a dangerous
weapon which is a required component of first-degree assault.
He also argued that there was not enough evidence to prove
second-degree assault because the victim did not endure a
serious physical injury. The trail court denied his request and
found the defendant guilty on both charges. The defendant
appealed the trial court’s ruling renewing his arguments.
The Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the first-degree
conviction and upheld the second-degree assault conviction. The
court sent the case back to the trial court for resentencing.
Issue:
1. Can teeth be considered a dangerous weapon?
2. Were the requirements of a serious physical injury met?
Decision:
1. No. The Oregon Court of Appeals found that defendant’s own
teeth are not a dangerous weapon and that the trial court made a
mistake in rejecting defendant’s request to drop the first-degree
assault charge.
2. Yes. The Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with the state
arguing that there was enough evidence to show that the victim

8. suffered a serious physical injury.
Reason:
The Oregon Court of Appeals first concentrated on the
defendant’s dispute to his first-degree assault conviction. They
originally looked at the wording and framework of the law.
Under state law, first-degree assault is committed when a
person intentionally uses a dangerous weapon to cause a serious
physical injury. State law defines a dangerous weapon as any
weapon used capable of causing serious physical injury. In
order to prove first-degree assault by way of a dangerous
weapon, the state needs to establish that the defendant’s teeth
are a weapon capable of causing serious physical injury. The
trial court determined that teeth are a dangerous weapon but
failed to state whether teeth are indeed a weapon. Since the trial
court failed to specify whether teeth are a weapon, the court
usually presumes that the trial court intended terms to have
their plain meaning which in this case suggests that a weapon is
something outside the human body and would not include the
defendant’s own teeth. Under a previous decision of the
Supreme Court of Oregon, the court held that a weapon is
something with which a person is armed and fortified. Based on
this decision, the Oregon Court of Appeals determined that a
defendant cannot arm himself with his own body, including his
teeth, removing it from being considered a dangerous weapon
for purposes of first-degree assault. The Oregon Court of
Appeals concluded that teeth cannot be considered a dangerous
weapon for the purpose of establishing a basis for first-degree
assault conviction of defendant.
The Oregon Court of Appeals turned to the defendant’s request
for the second-degree assault charges to be dropped because
there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the victim
suffered a serious physical injury. According to state law, to be
convicted of second-degree assault requires the defendant to
have intentionally caused serious physical injury to someone
else. Under state law, serious physical injury includes physical
injury which causes serious and prolonged disfigurement. The

9. lower portion of the victim’s ear is noticeably missing and there
is a visible scar. The victim needs to wear a prosthetic device.
Based on the facts, there was sufficient evidence for the trial
court to find that the victim suffered a serious and protracted
disfigurement and, thus, a serious physical injury. The Oregon
Court of Appeals agreed with the state arguing that the trial
court reasonably found that the victim suffered a serious and
protracted disfigurement presenting sufficient evidence that the
victim suffered a serious physical injury exists.
Case Briefing Assignment
(Human Resource Management)
A. Introduction
“Case law” is a term describing the published decisions of
courts of appeal (e.g. the Oregon Court of Appeals, which is the
court that reviews appeals of cases in Oregon county Circuit
Courts—see http://courts.oregon.gov/COA/). These published
decisions set important case precedent, meaning that other
courts usually must use these decisions as a template for how
to rule on a controversy involving similar facts and
circumstances. Typically, the higher the court, the more
important the precedent (e.g., the decisions of Oregon’s case,
the Oregon Supreme Court supersede decisions of the Oregon
Court of Appeals involving the same facts and circumstances).
Case law is important for many reasons. For instance, case
law interprets statutes, ordinances, and other law made by
Congress, state legislators, city councils, and other lawmakers.
Case law also interprets the U.S. Constitution, and the

10. constitutions of the various states. As such, case-law decisions
effectively modify the applicable law.
Case law is also important for businesses. This is because case
law provides important information regarding how a business
should operate under certain facts and circumstances, and how
businesses should interpret the law adopted by lawmakers. For
instance, in the case of Berry v. Richfiled Oil Corp., 189 Or
568, 587-588 (1950), the Oregon Supreme Court held that a
person who has not bothered to read or seek clarification of his
or her contract cannot later prevail in court on the basis that the
contract has been misrepresented. In the case of Lukas v. J.C.
Penney Co., 233 Or 345 (1963), the Oregon Supreme Court
ruled that a “cause of action” (meaning a basis for legal
liability) for false imprisonment may arise even if the period of
confinement is for a few minutes and not a much longer period;
hence, businesses cannot necessarily rely on the relatively short
duration of improper confinement (e.g. a minute or two) to
escape liability for false imprisonment.
Ideally, there would be at least one case describing how the law
applies (i.e. how a court would rule) to each possible business
controversy. That way, a business could act both proactively
(e.g. how to design its store to minimize negligence claims, how
to properly prepare employee contracts to minimize claims for
breach of contract, etc.) and reactively (e.g. exactly what to do
if someone slips and falls, what to do if the business is sued,
etc.) for every possible set of facts and circumstances. Of
course, in reality, each event in life is a bit different from
others. Hence, it is difficult to find a case “on all fours” (i.e.
identical) to any particular set of actual facts and
circumstances. However, cases can serve as extremely
important guides for what to do--and what not to do--in
business and in personal lives. Finding a “good case” (i.e.
similar facts and circumstances to the issue or problem at hand)
is important to lawyers and businesses alike in responding to
lawsuits—and perhaps more importantly, in providing
information on how to avoid them.

11. Don’t be surprised when your business attorney enthusiastically
says “I have found a great case for you” because attorneys are
trained to find cases for use in good, proactive business
planning and also to predict the outcome of legal controversies.
B. Assignment
Pick a topic of in interest concerning any issue concerning
human resources and express the key point or points (i.e. the
essence of the case) it in a few simple words—for instance, the
words “Americans with Disabilities Act” and “violation” or
“access.” Then add the name of a court to your search—for
instance “Oregon Court of Appeals” Google these terms. Many
published cases should appear, for instance the case of Alford v.
City of Cannon Beach, an Oregon case. You can pick a case
from any state as long as it is a court of appeals decision or
supreme court decision.
Instead of Google, you may also search the powerful lexis/nexis
legal data base available free to SOU students by using the
following link:
http://glacier.sou.edu/login?url=http://www.lexisnexis.com/univ
erse (see “Look up a Legal Case” then use “or by topic” box for
search terms).
Any published state or federal case concerning human resources
will be fine, but please don’t hesitate to contact me if you
would like suggestions or need help finding a case.
Length should be approximately three to five pages, double
spaced.
I provide a sample case on the other file to give you an idea
about what the case look
like.
Assignment Overview:
In the “State of the Conversation” Report, you have an
opportunity to:
-discuss the main positions related to your guiding

12. question/issue
-describe where the most useful information about your topic
can be found
-demonstrate your skills with summary, paraphrase, and direct
quotations
-organize and synthesize your material effectively
-adjust your writing to a specific audience
Audience: Assume you are writing to a group of people who are
fairly new to your issue and want to learn more so they can
participate in intelligent discussions with a wide group of
people.
Length: Approximately 1000 words.
REMEMBER: This is NOT an argumentative essay.
Your goal is to report the different positions related to your
issue.
What to Include in Your “State of the Conversation” Report:
Build your report using the sections and the headings below.
Suggested lengths are included.
Section 1: Overview of the Issue
In this section, offer relevant background/introductory
information. Explain what issue you’re focusing on, who the
issue is important to, and what makes the issue controversial--in
other words, why are people debating it?
Around 200 words.
Section 2: Your Specific Guiding Question/Issue
In this section, clearly announce your specific guiding
question/issue and explain why you chose to focus on this
particular question.
Around 100 words.

13. Section 3: Available Materials
In this section, describe where (in what kinds of sources, in
which databases, using which searches, etc.) a researcher is
likely to find useful information about your topic. You might
also explain the challenges a researcher faces in gathering
information about your topic, such as what kinds of sources are
not as useful, available, etc. (and why).
Around 200 words.
Section 4: Positions
In this section, carefully explain the various positions you’ve
found in response to your guiding question/issue.
Important Notes:
· Organize this section carefully. Group information according
to key positions (and variations within those positions). Don’t
just jump haphazardly from source to source. Use transitions to
move from position to position, and/or use subheadings if you
wish.
· Include a clear “topic-sentence”-type statement for each major
position and for each sub-position, and provide examples of the
sources that illustrate each major position and for each sub-
position you identify.
· When you give examples of sources for your positions, use
proper in-text citations and present these examples via a variety
of direct quotations, paraphrases, and summaries (at least one of
each).
· You must include at least one source example for each
position, but it is recommended that you include at least two
source examples per position. The more source examples you
include for a position, the better.
· Follow each source example you cite with discussion of how
the source supports the position it is meant to support.
· Bring in researched material to explain the position.
Remember that you will likely draw on multiple sources as you
explain each major position. “Frame” your research with
sentences that introduce, interpret and explain your sources.

14. · Use direct quotation, summary, and paraphrase to build your
own credibility.
· Do not simply organize your material into “two sides”: find
distinctions and overlap across the different positions.
Around 500 words.
Section 5: Conclusion
In this section, reiterate the key overall positions you’ve
discovered and emphasize the most important concepts/ideas
that someone new to your issue must understand.
Around 100 words.