State v. Mosley

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Appellate Procedure
  • Date Filed: 01-21-2021
  • Case #: A170593
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Shorr, J.; & Powers, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Requiring a party to preserve an issue in the trial court serves several purposes: it permits a trial court to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made and it also “fosters full development of the record, which aids the trial court in making a decision and the appellate court in reviewing it.” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 291-20, 181 P3d 637 (2008).

Defendant appealed from a judgment convicting him of violating a stalking protective order (SPO). On appeal, defendant “assigns error to the trial court’s exclusion of evidence regarding the dismissal of a different SPO that a witness had pursued against defendant.” The state argued that “defendant failed to preserve his assignment of error, because the record does not reflect whether he made the same arguments in the trial court that he now makes on appeal.” The state also contends that “defendant’s failure to make an offer of proof is fatal to his assignment of error because the trial court did not have an opportunity to consider its ruling in light of the evidence being offered, which in turn prevents [this court] from evaluating whether the trial court erred and whether any error was prejudicial.” The court agreed with the state. In general, a claim of error that has not been raised in the trial court will not be considered on appeal. State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333, 338, 211 P3d 262 (2009). The court held that “defendant did not make a record sufficient to permit review of his challenge to the trial court’s order.” Therefore, “[w]ithout an adequate record,” the court was “unable to assess whether an error occurred or was likely to be prejudicial.” Affirmed.

Advanced Search

Back to Top