assigned error in Oregon

2025State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305, 311 , 518 P3d 903 (2022).

2025State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305, 311 , 518 P3d 903 (2022).

2016Defendant did not object to the trial court’s failure to merge those verdicts and asks us to exercise our discretion to correct the assigned error as an “error of law apparent on the record,” also known as a “plain error.” See ORAP 5.45(1) (authorizing review of errors apparent on the record); State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (describing requirements for plain error review); see also Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 , 382 n 6, 823 P2d 956 (1991) (setting out a nonexclusive list of factors for a court to consider when deciding whether to exercise discretion to cor

2016Defendant did not object to the trial court’s failure to merge those verdicts and asks us to exercise our discretion to correct the assigned error as an “error of law apparent on the record,” also known as a “plain error.” See ORAP 5.45(1) (authorizing review of errors apparent on the record); State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (describing requirements for plain error review); see also Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 , 382 n 6, 823 P2d 956 (1991) (setting out a nonexclusive list of factors for a court to consider when deciding whether to exercise discretion to cor

2025We conduct our review of the juvenile court’s order requiring youth to report as a sex offender in accordance with the usual standard of appellate review, recogniz- ing that the juvenile court’s assigned inquiry under ORS Cite as 339 Or App 134 (2025) 137 163A.030(7)(b) is “a factual inquiry.” A. R.

2025H., 371 Or at 84 .

2017Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-21 , 191 P3d 637 (2008).

2017Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-21 , 191 P3d 637 (2008).

2015The compulsory process clause of the Sixth Amendment secures to a criminal defendant the right to call himself or herself to the witness stand to testify in his or her own defense: “Logically included in the accused’s right to call witnesses whose testimony is material and favorable to his defense * * * is a right to testify himself, should he decide it is in his favor to do so.” Rock v. Arkansas, 483 US 44, 52 , 107 S Ct 2704 , 97 L Ed 2d 37 (1987) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 3 As the Court has observed, “the most important witness for the defense in many criminal cases i

2015The compulsory process clause of the Sixth Amendment secures to a criminal defendant the right to call himself or herself to the witness stand to testify in his or her own defense: “Logically included in the accused’s right to call witnesses whose testimony is material and favorable to his defense * * * is a right to testify himself, should he decide it is in his favor to do so.” Rock v. Arkansas, 483 US 44, 52 , 107 S Ct 2704 , 97 L Ed 2d 37 (1987) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 3 As the Court has observed, “the most important witness for the defense in many criminal cases i

2015Defendant acknowledges that the assigned error is not preserved, but argues that our decision in State v. Frey, 248 Or App 1 , 273 P3d 143 (2012), rev den, 354 Or 814 (2014), makes it plainly erroneous for the trial court to have not, on its own, provided a concurrence instruction.

2015Defendant acknowledges that the assigned error is not preserved, but argues that our decision in State v. Frey, 248 Or App 1 , 273 P3d 143 (2012), rev den, 354 Or 814 (2014), makes it plainly erroneous for the trial court to have not, on its own, provided a concurrence instruction.

2015See, e.g., Hayes Oyster Co. v. Dulcich, 170 Or App 219 , 237 n 20, 12 P3d 507 (2000); State v. Stanley, 153 Or App 16, 20-21 , 955 P2d 764 (1998).

2015See, e.g., Hayes Oyster Co. v. Dulcich, 170 Or App 219 , 237 n 20, 12 P3d 507 (2000); State v. Stanley, 153 Or App 16, 20-21 , 955 P2d 764 (1998).

2015Even assuming that defendant was required to preserve the assigned error, we agree with him that the trial court’s remarks amounted to plain legal error in the light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Webb v. Texas, 409 US 95, 98 , 93 S Ct 351 , 34 L Ed 2d 330 (1972), that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a trial court from administering overly coercive warnings regarding the risks of testifying falsely. 2 State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (setting out the requirements for error apparent on the record).

2015Even assuming that defendant was required to preserve the assigned error, we agree with him that the trial court’s remarks amounted to plain legal error in the light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Webb v. Texas, 409 US 95, 98 , 93 S Ct 351 , 34 L Ed 2d 330 (1972), that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a trial court from administering overly coercive warnings regarding the risks of testifying falsely. 2 State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (setting out the requirements for error apparent on the record).

2015“ORS 138.640(1) imposes a clear-statement rule on judgments in post-conviction proceedings.” Soderstrom v. Premo, 274 Or App 624, 626 , 360 P3d 1272 (2015).

2015“ORS 138.640(1) imposes a clear-statement rule on judgments in post-conviction proceedings.” Soderstrom v. Premo, 274 Or App 624, 626 , 360 P3d 1272 (2015).

2014See, e.g., Dillard, 179 Or App at 26 n 1; State v. Schwartz, 173 Or App 301 , 305 n 2, 21 P3d 1128 , rev den, 333 Or 162 (2001) (observing that “[t]his requirement serves the purpose of causing the parties to frame their arguments appropriately” and “helps to identify any differences that the parties may have regarding the proper scope of review”).

2014See, e.g., Dillard, 179 Or App at 26 n 1; State v. Schwartz, 173 Or App 301 , 305 n 2, 21 P3d 1128 , rev den, 333 Or 162 (2001) (observing that “[t]his requirement serves the purpose of causing the parties to frame their arguments appropriately” and “helps to identify any differences that the parties may have regarding the proper scope of review”).

2014State v. Lupoli, 348 Or 346 , [ 234 P3d 117 ] (2010); State v Keller, 315 Or 273, 284-85 , [ 844 P2d 195 ] (1993).” Defendant did not provide any further explanation in support of the motion, but the state offered possible context by noting that, in defendant’s first trial, detectives had been cross-examined with accusations that they “had jumped to conclusions” and that their investigation was incomplete, and their credibility had been attacked.

2014State v. Lupoli, 348 Or 346 , [ 234 P3d 117 ] (2010); State v Keller, 315 Or 273, 284-85 , [ 844 P2d 195 ] (1993).” Defendant did not provide any further explanation in support of the motion, but the state offered possible context by noting that, in defendant’s first trial, detectives had been cross-examined with accusations that they “had jumped to conclusions” and that their investigation was incomplete, and their credibility had been attacked.

2014State v. Lupoli, 348 Or 346 , [ 234 P3d 117 ] (2010); State v Keller, 315 Or 273, 284-85 , [ 844 P2d 195 ] (1993).” Defendant did not provide any further explanation in support of the motion, but the state offered possible context by noting that, in defendant’s first trial, detectives had been cross-examined with accusations that they “had jumped to conclusions” and that their investigation was incomplete, and their credibility had been attacked.

2014State v. Lupoli, 348 Or 346 , [ 234 P3d 117 ] (2010); State v Keller, 315 Or 273, 284-85 , [ 844 P2d 195 ] (1993).” Defendant did not provide any further explanation in support of the motion, but the state offered possible context by noting that, in defendant’s first trial, detectives had been cross-examined with accusations that they “had jumped to conclusions” and that their investigation was incomplete, and their credibility had been attacked.

2010“To constitute plain error, the error must (1) be an error of law, (2) be apparent, meaning the legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute, and (3) appear on the face of the record such that we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it.” State v. Ascencio-Galindo, 220 Or App 600 , 602 n 1, 188 P3d 392 , rev den, 345 Or 175 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2010“To constitute plain error, the error must (1) be an error of law, (2) be apparent, meaning the legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute, and (3) appear on the face of the record such that we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it.” State v. Ascencio-Galindo, 220 Or App 600 , 602 n 1, 188 P3d 392 , rev den, 345 Or 175 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2010“To constitute plain error, the error must (1) be an error of law, (2) be apparent, meaning the legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute, and (3) appear on the face of the record such that we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it.” State v. Ascencio-Galindo, 220 Or App 600 , 602 n 1, 188 P3d 392 , rev den, 345 Or 175 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2008State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 346-47 , 15 P3d 22 (2000).

2008State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 346-47 , 15 P3d 22 (2000).

1999Defendant argues that, in State ex rel Huddleston v. Sawyer, 324 Or 597, 607 , 932 P2d 1145 , cert den _US_, 118 S Ct 557 , 139 L Ed 2d 399 (1997), the court concluded that a virtually identical question was not reviewable on direct appeal and thus was reviewable in mandamus.

1999Defendant argues that, in State ex rel Huddleston v. Sawyer, 324 Or 597, 607 , 932 P2d 1145 , cert den _US_, 118 S Ct 557 , 139 L Ed 2d 399 (1997), the court concluded that a virtually identical question was not reviewable on direct appeal and thus was reviewable in mandamus.

1999Defendant argues that, in State ex rel Huddleston v. Sawyer, 324 Or 597, 607 , 932 P2d 1145 , cert den _US_, 118 S Ct 557 , 139 L Ed 2d 399 (1997), the court concluded that a virtually identical question was not reviewable on direct appeal and thus was reviewable in mandamus.

1999Defendant argues that, in State ex rel Huddleston v. Sawyer, 324 Or 597, 607 , 932 P2d 1145 , cert den _US_, 118 S Ct 557 , 139 L Ed 2d 399 (1997), the court concluded that a virtually identical question was not reviewable on direct appeal and thus was reviewable in mandamus.

1993We held that he had not timely appealed the order on which the assigned error was based. 120 Or App 414 , 852 P2d 924 (1993).

1993We held that he had not timely appealed the order on which the assigned error was based. 120 Or App 414 , 852 P2d 924 (1993).

1990Plaintiff relies on ORS 12.155 and the Supreme Court's decision in Duncan v. Dubin, 276 Or. 631 , 556 P.2d 105 (1976).

1990Plaintiff relies on ORS 12.155 and the Supreme Court's decision in Duncan v. Dubin, 276 Or. 631 , 556 P.2d 105 (1976).