State v. Blasingame

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Appellate Procedure
  • Date Filed: 12-24-2014
  • Case #: A152230
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Haselton, C.J. for the Court; Duncan, P.J.; & Edmonds, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

On appeal, a court has the discretion to recognize challenges that were neither raised nor preserved at trial, but this discretion should only be exercised cautiously.

Defendant appealed his jury conviction for delivery of a controlled substance. Defendant was driving when an officer stopped him for speeding; eventually the vehicle was impounded. Evidence was shown that Defendant was planning to retrieve marijuana from the impounded vehicle and sell it. On appeal, Defendant challenges the jury instruction that was provided at trial as an impermissible comment on the evidence and deprivation of due process. Under Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., a court has the discretion to recognize an unpreserved challenge in very limited situations. When determining the adequacy of the preservation of a challenge, the court should focus on whether the party provided enough information for the court to understand and respond to the challenge. The Court held that Defendant failed to adequately raise the challenge at trial and therefore the challenge is not preserved on appeal. The Court declined to exercise its Ailes discretion. Affirmed.

Advanced Search