State v. Brown

“Preservation rules are 'pragmatic as well as prudential,' and they are intended to promote the administration of justice, not subvert it.” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 220, 191 P3d 637 (2008).

Defendant appealed a judgement revoking his probation on two counts of first-degree burglary and imposing a sentence of 90 months’ imprisonment. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s admission of hearsay testimony in light of his right to confront witnesses under the Due Process Clause. On appeal, the State contended that Defendant failed to preserve the issue for appeal because in his contention for appeal, his objections were mentioned the wrong constitutional clause. “Preservation rules are 'pragmatic as well as prudential,' and they are intended to promote the administration of justice, not subvert it.”  Peeples v.  Lampert, 345 Or 209, 220, 191 P3d 637 (2008). However, because Defendant objected to the hearsay evidence, raised the issue of confrontation, made an effort to cite an applicable case, and identified specific factors relevant to the due process issue, the Court determined that he adequately preserved the issue for appeal. Thus, the Court held that the trial court erred in failing to grant Defendant the opportunity to confront his accuser. Reversed and remanded.