State v. D. F. U.

“To preserve a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, an appellant must raise the issue before the trial court with enough specificity to allow the court to consider the issue and rule on it." See, e.g., State v. Barboe, 253 Or App 367, 373-74 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 714 (2013).

Appellant challenged the trial court’s judgement of recommitment that followed appellants flee from a secure residential treatment facility. Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the clear and convincing evidence to issue a recommitment order. Appellant conceded that his argument was not preserved at the trial level via argument but claimed that his testimony was sufficient to preserve his objection to recommitment. “To preserve a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, an appellant must raise the issue before the trial court with enough specificity to allow the court to consider the issue and rule on it." See, e.g., State v. Barboe, 253 Or App 367, 373-74 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 714 (2013). The Court held that Appellant’s testimony did not suffice to put the trial court in a position to understand and rule on the objection. Without a specific argument that the Court should exercise its discretion to review the record de novo this issue cannot be considered on appeal. Affirmed.