State v. Vanornum

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Appellate Procedure
  • Date Filed: 06-27-2012
  • Case #: A142341
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Sercombe, J.; and Schuman, J., dissenting.
  • Full Text Opinion

An objection to instructions given by the trial judge must adequately identify the asserted error to the trial court so “the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.” If the objection is too “generalized,” it will not be preserved for review on appeal.

Defendant appealed his convictions for resisting arrest and disorderly conduct and claims that the trial court erred by not giving a special jury instruction. At trial, Defendant argued that the rejected supplemental instructions would have given the jury more detailed information regarding the nature of the law. The jury found Defendant guilty on both counts. The Court of Appeals held Defendant’s objection was not specific enough and did not identify the alleged error as required by ORCP 59 H(2). Therefore, Defendant failed to preserve the claim of instructional error for appeal. Affirmed.

Advanced Search