State v. Logan

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Appellate Procedure
  • Date Filed: 08-26-2015
  • Case #: A153874
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: DeVore, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Garrett, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

When objecting to character evidence, an objection must also be made regarding the limiting instruction in order to argue that issue on appeal.

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for strangulation and fourth degree assault. Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred by giving the wrong limiting instruction. At trial, the state introduced evidence of previous violence toward the victim in order to combat any argument that the victim was strangled accidentally by Defendant. Defendant objected to the evidence, arguing that it was inadmissible propensity evidence. The trial court allowed the evidence. Defendant maintained his objection to the evidence throughout the trial and afterward, but never requested a limiting instruction or objected to the one used by the court. Since Defendant’s argument on appeal is based on the limiting instruction, the issue has not been preserved. Defendant should have made some objection to the limiting instruction or requested one of his own in order to alert the trial court to a possible error. Because the issue was not preserved, it cannot be argued on appeal and will not be reviewed as plain error. Affirmed.

Advanced Search