- Court: Oregon Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Appellate Procedure
- Date Filed: 07-22-2021
- Case #: S067539
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Nelson J. for the Court; Balmer, J. dissenting.
- Full Text Opinion
The State petitioned the Court’s review of the court of appeals' holding that a new trial was required. The State asked the Court to clarify the trial court’s authority on a general remand by an appellate court. The State contended that the trial court should be allowed to remedy its prior mistake without a retrial so long as the substantive ruling is not disturbed. Defendant argued that a retrial is required on remand, provided the appellate court has not foreclosed a retrial with limiting instructions. To interpret the appellate court’s decision to remand a case, the trial court should focus not only on the explicit and implicit instructions provided in the appellate court’s opinion, but also on the entirety of the record as it relates to the identified error. The Court ruled that, if on remand the trial court determines that the record could have developed differently absent the error, then a retrial is required. The Court held that a retrial was required in this case, because the record may not have remained the same had the error not occurred. As a result, the trial court on remand should have granted the Defendant the right to a new trial. Reversed and remanded for new trial.