- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Appellate Procedure
- Date Filed: 07-23-2014
- Case #: A148004
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, P.J. for the Court; Wollheim, J.; & Schuman, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed his conviction for stalking and telephonically harassing. Defendant had recently ended a relationship with T.N., who subsequently began a relationship with J.C., who had been a friend of defendant. Defendant sent e-mails in which he made threats against J.C. Those e-mails were sent to T.N.’s mother, who forwarded them to T.N., who subsequently forwarded them to J.C. Defendant had objected to the admission of those emails at trial on the basis of the right to confront the mother – who did not testify at trial – under the confrontation clause. On appeal, defendant advanced two arguments based on hearsay. Defendant contended that the e-mails were (1) inadmissible layered hearsay; and (2) inadmissible under Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, which gives a criminal defendant the right to meet his witness face-to-face. The Court found that defendant had not raised the issue of hearsay at trial and held that defendant’s arguments based on hearsay were not preserved for appeal. The Court noted that, to preserve an issue for appeal, a party must provide the trial court with an argument that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to consider and correct it immediately, if correction is warranted. Affirmed.