State v. Brown

“In [State v.] Jackson, we explained that, when the trial court’s ruling was anticipatory and merely revealed the trial court’s inclinations, the ruling could not be challenged on appeal; counsel needed to do something more to give rise to a final appealable ruling, such as offer or object to specific evidence at trial. 68 Or App at 513.”

Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction for first-degree robbery, first-degree burglary, unlawful use of a weapon, strangulation, second-degree kidnapping, and menacing. Defendant assigned seven errors to the trial court’s decision, however, the Court focuses on two: (1) the trial court’s denial of limiting evidence under OEC 403 on three occasions and (2) the trial court’s denial of Defendant's motion for mistrial. On appeal, Defendant argued the trial court erred by making a statement that it would not exclude certain testimony and evidence that Defendant did not know of. “In [State v.] Jackson, we explained that, when the trial court’s ruling was anticipatory and merely revealed the trial court’s inclinations, the ruling could not be challenged on appeal; counsel needed to do something more to give rise to a final appealable ruling, such as offer or object to specific evidence at trial. 68 Or App at 513.” Among other things, the Court held that the trial court’s statement was anticipatory and preliminary as it merely provided guidelines, therefore it cannot be challenged on appeal. Affirmed.