State v. Hall

State v. Reed and Ailes v. Portland Meadows found that when deciding whether to exercise discretion to correct plain error, a court may consider the competing interests of the parties, the ends of justice in a particular case and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in another way.

Hall appealed the trial court’s decision to impose a no-contact provision as part of the judgment. Hall specifically argued that the trial court lacked authority to impose the no-contact provision either as a condition of incarceration or as a condition of post-prison supervision. This Court holds that in deciding whether to exercise discretion to correct plain error, a court may consider the competing interests of the parties, the ends of justice in a particular case and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in another way. See State v. Reed, 235 Or App 470 (2010); see also Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 (1991). Since none of those factors were met, this Court found that the trial court does not have the authority to impose conditions of incarceration or post-prison supervision. Reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment omitting the challenged no-contact provision.