State v. Fitzgerald

For an error to be considered on appeal, it must be preserved. See Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-21 (2008).

Defendant appealed a conviction of contempt and assigned error to the trial court’s ruling. On appeal, Defendant argued the court held him in contempt for using a constitutional right when he interrupted the proceeding to fire his attorney. In response, the State argued that because neither Defendant nor defense counsel objected to the contempt ruling, the error was unpreserved. For an error to be considered on appeal, it must be preserved. See Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-21 (2008). The Court held that Defendant failed to preserve the error because Defendant made no objection to the contempt finding. Moreover, the Court reasoned that Defendant’s futility argument--that an objection would not have been entertained by the trial court--was incorrect because the record showed the trial court was strict but considerate. The Court held that the trial court found contempt because of the way Defendant interrupted the proceeding, not for the content of his interruption. Therefore, the trial court did not punish Defendant for exercising his right to dismiss counsel, rather, because of his demeanor. Affirmed.