State v. Ixcolin-Otzoy

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Appellate Procedure
  • Date Filed: 10-04-2017
  • Case #: A157191
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Oregta, P.J. for the Court; Lagesen, J.; & Garrett, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

To preserve an argument for appeal, a party must proffer a precise and narrow explanation of the objection to the trial court so that it may have ample opportunity to address any errors. State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 343, 15 P3d 22 (2000).

Defendant appealed order awarding DHS and CARES Northwest restitution damages for costs of a sexual assault examination done by CARES on Defendant's 15-year-old victim. Defendant assigned error to trial court's decision awarding restitution. On appeal, Defendant argued that an organization that does investigatory services in the normal course of their business is not entitled to restitution because those services do not qualify as "verifiable monetary loss" under ORS 137.106. The State countered that Defendant's argument was not properly before the court because it was not adequately preserved at trial.  To preserve an argument for appeal, a party must proffer a precise and narrow explanation of the objection to the trial court so that it may have ample opportunity to address any errors. State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 343, 15 P3d 22 (2000). The Court of Appeals held that Defendant did not properly preserved his objection because the trial court reasonably believed that the question was whether the sexual assault exam qualified as “medical” or “investigatory”; rather than Defendant’s argument on appeal, that CARES had suffered no “verifiable monetary loss” because the exam’s cost fell under CARES normal costs of doing business. Affirmed. 

Advanced Search