State v. Anderson-Brown

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Evidence
  • Date Filed: 03-30-2016
  • Case #: A154648
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, J., for the Court; Duncan, P.J.; & Flynn, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A Defendant bears the burden of framing the issues in a motion to suppress in a way that informs a trial court of what the defendant is asking the court to do, and that notifies the state of the contentions it must respond to. To sufficiently preserve error on appeal, a defendant must frame the issues in a way that makes the defendant’s contention sufficiently clear to the state and the trial court to give them the opportunity to understand the contention and fairly respond to it.

Defendant appealed a trial court judgment convicting Defendant of possession of heroin. ORS 475.854. On appeal, Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s admission of statements Defendant made to the arresting officers and the physical evidence resulting from the consented-to search of Defendant’s backpack, arguing that the evidence was inadmissible because the officers failed to provide Defendant with Miranda warnings. A Defendant bears the burden of framing the issues in a motion to suppress in a way that informs a trial court of what the defendant is asking the court to do, and that notifies the state of the contentions it must respond to. State v. Sweet, 122. Or. App. 525, 529, 858 P.2d 477 (1993). And under the standard announced in State v. Walker, to sufficiently preserve error on appeal, a defendant must frame the issues in a way that makes the defendant’s contention sufficiently clear to the state and the trial court to give them the opportunity “to understand the contention and fairly respond to it.” 350 Or. 540, 552, 258 P.3d 1228 (2011). The determination of whether a defendant has sufficiently preserved his assignment of error is a practical one based on the record of the particular case. Affirmed.

Advanced Search