State v. Totland

The court reviews “a trial court’s decision to overrule an objection to closing arguments for abuse of discretion.” State v. Logston, 270 Or App 296, 303, 347 P.2d 352 (2015). "In conducting this review, we review statements made by a party during argument in context, not in a vacuum.” State v. Purrier, 265 Or App 618, 621, 336 P3d 574 (2014).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). Defendant assigned error to the trial court overruling his objection to the prosecutor's closing statement. On appeal, Defendant argued the statement about Defendant's refusal to complete a field sobriety test improperly shifted the burden of proof to Defendant and “misstated the law,” which affected the verdict. In response, the State argued the statement did not improperly shift the burden, and even if it did, it was harmless. The court reviews “a trial court’s decision to overrule an objection to closing arguments for abuse of discretion.” State v. Logston, 270 Or App 296, 303, 347 P.2d 352 (2015). "In conducting this review, we review statements made by a party during argument in context, not in a vacuum.” State v. Purrier, 265 Or App 618, 621, 336 P3d 574 (2014). The Court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled the objection because the statement was used to get the jurors to make a logical inference related to Defendant's failure to complete the tests and Defendant believing the results would be incriminating.  Additionally, the Court held that the statement was not improper because the jury was instructed on the burden of proof four times by the court and the prosecutor began the argument by referencing it.

Affirmed.