State v. Bales

After an appellate court remands based on an erroneous trial-court ruling, a trial court must not limit itself to considering whether it might again rule similarly (but on a permissible basis), but must also consider what effect its erroneous ruling had at the time it was made and whether the evidentiary record or the parties’ arguments might have developed in a materially different way at that time had the trial court not erred. See State v. Hightower, 368 Or 378, 491 P3d 769 (2021).

Defendant was charged with assault for recklessly causing physical injury to a nurse and criminal mischief for damaging hospital equipment. On remand, the trial court decided that a retrial was not necessary and entered a judgment of conviction. Defendant appealed again, challenging the trial court’s decision not to hold a new trial. On appeal, the Court relied Hightower, stating that "after an appellate court remands based on an erroneous trial-court ruling, a trial court must not limit itself to considering whether it might again rule similarly (but on a permissible basis), but must also consider what effect its erroneous ruling had at the time it was made and whether the evidentiary record or the parties’ arguments might have developed in a materially different way at that time had the trial court not erred. See State v. Hightower, 368 Or 378, 491 P3d 769 (2021). Thus, the Court remanded the case again so that the trial court, which “did not have the benefit of Hightower when it described what it believed to be its limited task on remand,” could “engage in the analysis that Hightower requires.” Reversed and remanded.