State v. Debuiser

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Appellate Procedure
  • Date Filed: 04-04-2012
  • Case #: A145479
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Brewer, P.J. for the Court; and Gillette, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A court does not commit plain error when a plausible inference can be drawn that an objection was not made for tactical reasons.

Defendant was convicted of third degree theft and harassment due to his attempt to steal from a grocery store, and trying to place an employee in a headlock. The lower court imposed a compensatory fine on the Defendant under ORS 137.101, to which he did not object, due to his actions against the employee, despite a lack of evidence in the record of the employee requiring any form of compensation. Defendant appealed, arguing that the lower court committed plain error due the lack of evidence in the record. The Court of Appeals disagreed, reasoning that because Defendant had stated during sentencing that he faced a $3,000 fine in another unrelated matter, that created a plausible inference that the Defendant did not preserve the error for tactical reasons. Therefore, the lower court did not commit plain error. Affirmed.

Advanced Search