State v. Villar

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Evidence
  • Date Filed: 09-07-2017
  • Case #: A159411
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, J. for the Court; Egan P.J., & Schuman, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

An argument may be preserved for appeal if it is apparent from the record that the trial court should have known the reasoning behind a general objection to the admissibility of evidence. Williamson v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 284 Or 11, 16, 584 P2d 753 (1978).

Defendant appealed a conviction of trespass, resisting arrest, and interfering with a peace officer under ORS 164.245, ORS 162.315, and ORS 162.241. Defendant assigned error to the trial court allowing the officer to testify that the defendant “had nothing to say” during in-custody questioning.Defendant argued that his statement was inadmissible testimonial evidence because it was an unequivocal invocation of his right against self-incrimination. The state responded that the defendant did not preserve his argument on appeal. An argument may be preserved for appeal if it is apparent from the record that the trial court should have known the reasoning behind a general objection to the admissibility of evidence. Williamson v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 284 Or 11, 16, 584 P2d 753 (1978). The Court of Appeals held that the trail court erred because the record indicated the judge understood the reasoning behind the objection to the officer’s testimony. The Court found this error harmful to the defendant. Reversed and remanded. 

Advanced Search