Evans v. Nooth

“Appellate courts should not decide new issues upon which the trial court had no opportunity to rule.” Vancil v. Poulson, 236 Or 314, 388 P2d 444 (1964).

At trial, Petitioner moved unsuccessfully to exclude testimony of a doctor who opined as to the diagnosis of Petitioner’s victim. The Court of Appeals reversed in part as to the doctor’s testimony, and the State sought reconsideration. Petitioner then sought post-conviction relief and alleged that counsel’s response to the reconsideration was inadequate assistance. Petitioner argued that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to rely on State v. Southard regarding the doctor’s testimony. Petitioner’s claims were denied and he again appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed and held that Petitioner failed to prove that he was prejudiced by counsel’s response. The Oregon Supreme Court granted Petitioner’s request for review on the contention that the Court of Appeals misstated a post-conviction burden of proof, consequently, the State requested remand for further consideration of the inadequate assistance claim. “Appellate courts should not decide new issues upon which the trial court had no opportunity to rule.” Vancil v. Poulson, 236 Or 314, 388 P2d 444 (1964). The Court did not reach the parties’ arguments but instead held that the Court of Appeals had erroneously applied a “directed verdict” standard and thereby imposed an evidentiary burden on Petitioner to prove facts in his post-conviction claim that had not been at issue in the trial court. The Court reversed and remanded for an accurate consideration of Petitioner’s post-conviction claim. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.