Willamette Law Online

Oregon Supreme Court


ListPreviousNext


State v. Haynes

Summarized by: 

Date Filed: 08-16-2012
Case #: S060103
De Muniz, J. for the Court; En Banc.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Publications/S060103.pdf

Appellate Procedure: In order to preserve an issue for appeal with a single word or phrase, it must be used in a context that allows the court and the other parties to understand that it refers to a particular legal or factual argument and the essential contours around the full argument.

On appeal from Multnomah Circuit Court. The Defendant was alleged to have killed an elderly man in his home in Northeast Portland in 1994 by inflicting multiple stab wounds. In the trial court, the State included a narrative of events that led to the Defendant’s arrest in Vancouver, WA in an unrelated incident shortly after the murder occurred. At the suppression hearing, the State made the argument for the first time that the incident in Vancouver was relevant to show the Defendant’s flight from Oregon as part of the continuing course of conduct. The State appealed the trial court’s ruling granting the Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence of prior bad acts and granting in part the Defendant’s motion to exclude the police interview. On appeal, the State argued the evidence showed the Defendant was within the proximity of the victim’s home during the time of the murder and the evidence showed the Defendant’s flight. The Supreme Court held that reference to “flight” was insufficient to preserve arguments relating to the Defendant’s flight. In order to preserve an issue for appeal with a single word or phrase, it must be used in a context that allows the court and the other parties to understand that it refers to a particular legal or factual argument. The state’s single mention of flight in the context of continuing course of conduct was insufficient to preserve the issue. The Court declined to rule on the state’s appeal of the trial judge’s order granting in part the defendant’s motion to exclude the police interview because the order states that some of the defendant’s admissions in the interview are relevant, and leaves open the possibility of objections for the rest. Affirmed.