State v. Alonzo

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 03-28-2012
  • Case #: A143248
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Nakamoto, J. for the Court; Schuman, P. J; and Wollheim, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORCP 59 H(1), there are two situations that bar appellate review if the party does not preserve its objection: (1) An erroneous instruction from the trial court; and (2) Refusing to deliver a parties’ requested instruction.

Defendant appealed numerous convictions and assigned error to the trial court’s jury instruction. Defendant was charged and convicted for numerous crimes. During trial, the court instructed the jury regarding aiding and abetting a crime. Defendant appealed the trial court's jury instruction claiming that it was an incorrect statement of law and therefore plain error, which is reviewable under ORAP 5.45(1). However, the Court held the Defendant failed to preserve the error for review because the Defendant did not comply with ORCP 59 H(1). Under ORCP 59 H(1), there are two situations that bar appellate review if the party does not preserve its objection: (1) An erroneous instruction from the trial court; and (2) Refusing to deliver a parties’ requested instruction. The Court found that the defendant did not object to the trial court's erroneous jury instruction and therefore it was unreviewable. Affirmed.

Advanced Search