State v. Wolcott

“[The Court has] discretion to correct an unpreserved error only if it is an error of law, the legal point is obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and it appears on the face of the record.” ORAP 5.45(1).

Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s order requiring him to provide a thumbprint to the Oregon State Police during the process of providing a blood-or-buccal swab. Defendant had been found guilty except for insanity of first-degree assault. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court lacked statutory authority under ORS 137.076 to order him to provide a thumbprint to Oregon State Police because he was found guilty except for insanity, not convicted of a felony or other enumerated crime. Defendant further argues ORS 161.325(4) only authorizes the blood or buccal swab. The Court determined that there was a reasonable dispute as to whether the trial court erred and that there is a reasonable argument that “manner provided” includes collection of a thumbprint as part of that process. The Court held that Defendant’s assignment of error does not qualify as plain error. Affirmed.