State v. Gillson

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Appellate Procedure
  • Date Filed: 11-20-2013
  • Case #: A149387
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Hadlock, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; and Sercombe, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

To preserve an argument, the party must explain the objection to the trial court specific enough to ensure that the court can identify an alleged error, consider the error, and correct the error if warranted.

Defendant appealed a conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. Maverick, a drug-detection dog smelled an odor coming out of Defendant's purse. The dog knocked over the purse, scattering the contents onto the ground, which included a baggie of methamphetamine. Defendant argued that during the trial the State did not establish that the dog’s drug-detecting ability was sufficient to constitute probable cause to conduct a search. However, because the State only briefly touched on the issue and Defendant did not further address it, the court did not interpret that it was asked to rule on whether the dog’s ability was reliable and consider the argued deficiencies in the State’s proof. For an Appellate Court to consider an argument, the argument must be preserved. To preserve an argument, the party must explain the objection to the trial court specific enough to ensure that the court can identify an alleged error, consider the error, and correct the error if warranted. The Court held that because Defendant did not preserve her argument that the search was unlawful, there is no basis to reverse the trial court’s ruling. Affirmed.

Advanced Search