State v. Osborn

A defendant can be restrained at trial if they pose an “immediate and serious risk of dangerous or disruptive behavior.” State v. Moore, 45 Or App 837, 839-40 (1980). Further, the trial court’s decision to restrain a defendant must be supported by developing a record of the basis for choosing to exercise its discretion.

Defendant appealed a conviction for forgery and possession of a forged instrument. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s ruling that Defendant be restrained at trial. The courtroom deputy placed Defendant into a leg brace to limit mobility and the chances of escape. On appeal, Defendant argued that it was unconstitutional to employ the restraint, an argument she made in limine, and that the judge applied the incorrect legal standard when allowing the restraint. In response, the State argued that the error was not preserved and that it was harmless. A defendant can be restrained at trial if they pose an “immediate and serious risk of dangerous or disruptive behavior.” State v. Moore, 45 Or App 837, 839-40 (1980). Further, the trial court’s decision to restrain a defendant must be supported by developing a record of the basis for choosing to exercise its discretion. The court held that Defendant’s motion in limine, coupled with her argument to the court at trial served as proper preservation to meet the policy goals under ORAP 5.45(1). Additionally, the Court held that the trial court abused its discretion and the error was not harmless because it may have affected Defendant’s decision not to testify. Reversed and remanded.