State v. Henderson

ORS 137.540(2) grants a trial court broad discretion in imposing special conditions of probation, but those conditions must be “reasonably related to the crime of conviction or the needs of the probationer for the protection of the public or reformation of the probationer, or both.” State v. Gaskill, 250 Or App 100, 102-03, 279 P3d 275 (2012).

Defendant assigned error to the lower court for conditioning his probation of a violation of a stalking protective order on restricting his travel to Wallowa county in Oregon and the state of Arizona. Both of these locations are inhabited by either the victim herself or the victim’s family. Although he failed to object to these conditions at trial, Defendant argued these restrictions are far too broad. The State argued that these conditions are required and justified for this stalking case. ORS 137.540(2) grants a trial court broad discretion in imposing special conditions of probation, but those conditions must be “reasonably related to the crime of conviction or the needs of the probationer for the protection of the public or reformation of the probationer, or both.” State v. Gaskill, 250 Or App 100, 102-03, 279 P3d 275 (2012). Because the issue was not preserved at trial and Defendant has another avenue to modify the conditions, the Court declined to exercise discretion to reverse the restrictions as plain error. Affirmed.