- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Evidence
- Date Filed: 05-16-2024
- Case #: S070410
- Judge(s)/Court Below: En Banc, Opinion by James, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant was charged and convicted for failing to disclose his prior conviction when attempting to purchase a weapon. Before closing, Defendant made a preemptive objection to any burden shifting arguments in the state’s closing, but did not specify what would be an objectionable argument. The trial court sustained the objection. Defendant appealed, arguing that his peremptory objection to a burden shifting argument should have been preserved on appeal. The state argued this objection was not preserved, but the Court of Appeals treated the argument as though it was and reversed the lower court's decision. On the state's appeal, the Supreme Court reasoned that preservation requires a party to explain their objection enough to understand the error. Here, the court found the Defendant failed to adequately explain his objection and thus had failed to preserve his error for appeal. Vacate and remand.