defendant assigned error in Oregon

2026An example of the former is State v. Gray, 261 Or App 121, 125 , 322 P3d 1094 (2014), in which the trial court gave no instruction on a culpable mental state for the forcible-compulsion element of two crimes, the defendant did not object, the defendant assigned error to the omission on appeal, and we recognized the claim of error as unpreserved.

2026An example of the former is State v. Gray, 261 Or App 121, 125 , 322 P3d 1094 (2014), in which the trial court gave no instruction on a culpable mental state for the forcible-compulsion element of two crimes, the defendant did not object, the defendant assigned error to the omission on appeal, and we recognized the claim of error as unpreserved.

2025In State v. Fern, the defendant assigned error to the trial court’s alleged failure to allow him his right to allocution at his sentencing hearing. 110 Or App 185, 187 , 822 P2d 1210 (1991).

2025In State v. Fern, the defendant assigned error to the trial court’s alleged failure to allow him his right to allocution at his sentencing hearing. 110 Or App 185, 187 , 822 P2d 1210 (1991).

2025Ruggles (Ruggles Reconsideration), 217 Or App at 388 .8 He argued that the admission of the evidence violated his confrontation rights because the report “ ‘contained statements made by persons who were not available for cross-examination at trial.’ ” Ruggles Reconsideration, 217 Or App at 387 . 8 In our first opinion, we addressed both Mollahan’s report and his testimony.

2025Ruggles (Ruggles Reconsideration), 217 Or App at 388 .8 He argued that the admission of the evidence violated his confrontation rights because the report “ ‘contained statements made by persons who were not available for cross-examination at trial.’ ” Ruggles Reconsideration, 217 Or App at 387 . 8 In our first opinion, we addressed both Mollahan’s report and his testimony.

2025In Wayman, the defendant assigned error to the rejection of a special jury instruction about EED and a proposed special verdict form, each of which informed the jury that it could reject his EED defense only if all jurors concurred. 339 Or App at 11 .

2025In Wayman, the defendant assigned error to the rejection of a special jury instruction about EED and a proposed special verdict form, each of which informed the jury that it could reject his EED defense only if all jurors concurred. 339 Or App at 11 .

2010On appeal, the defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered inside the residence, and we concluded that the emergency aid exception did not justify the officers' entry into the defendant's apartment. 223 Or.App. at 524-25 , 196 P.3d 1017 .

2010On appeal, the defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered inside the residence, and we concluded that the emergency aid exception did not justify the officers' entry into the defendant's apartment. 223 Or.App. at 524-25 , 196 P.3d 1017 .

2002Id. at 121 , 611 P.2d 297 .

2002Id. at 121 .

2002In Crow , the defendant assigned error on appeal to the trial court's failure to give the defendant's requested instruction on contributory negligence. 241 Or. at 141 , 404 P.2d 789 .

2002In Crow , the defendant assigned error on appeal to the trial court’s failure to give the defendant’s requested instruction on contributory negligence. 241 Or at 141 .

1999Hilaire, the defendant assigned as error the trial court’s admission of a police detective’s testimony “that victims of sexual abuse rarely report the crime immediately, often minimize the activity and often are imprecise about the dates of occurrences.” 97 Or App at 111 .

1999Hilaire , the defendant assigned as error the trial court's admission of a police detective's testimony "that victims of sexual abuse rarely report the crime immediately, often minimize the activity and often are imprecise about the dates of occurrences." 97 Or.App. at 111 , 775 P.2d 876 .

2021In State v. Ko, the defendant assigned error to the trial court’s refusal to give a choice-of-evils instruction on two counts of violating a stalking protective order. 245 Or App 403, 407-09 , 263 P3d 1082 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 246 Or App 410 , 264 P3d 1293 , rev den, 351 Or 296 State v. Dart 507 (2011).

2021In State v. Ko, the defendant assigned error to the trial court’s refusal to give a choice-of-evils instruction on two counts of violating a stalking protective order. 245 Or App 403, 407-09 , 263 P3d 1082 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 246 Or App 410 , 264 P3d 1293 , rev den, 351 Or 296 State v. Dart 507 (2011).

2021In State v. Ko, the defendant assigned error to the trial court’s refusal to give a choice-of-evils instruction on two counts of violating a stalking protective order. 245 Or App 403, 407-09 , 263 P3d 1082 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 246 Or App 410 , 264 P3d 1293 , rev den, 351 Or 296 State v. Dart 507 (2011).

2021In State v. Ko, the defendant assigned error to the trial court’s refusal to give a choice-of-evils instruction on two counts of violating a stalking protective order. 245 Or App 403, 407-09 , 263 P3d 1082 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 246 Or App 410 , 264 P3d 1293 , rev den, 351 Or 296 State v. Dart 507 (2011).

2018We noted that, in Boots II , "the Supreme Court held that, where all elements of a murder had been found in the defendant's original jury trial, the trial court correctly limited the jury's consideration on retrial of an aggravated murder charge to those elements necessary to establish the greater offense." Id. (citing Boots II , 315 Or. at 578 -79 , 848 P.2d 76 ).

2018We noted that, in Boots II , "the Supreme Court held that, where all elements of a murder had been found in the defendant's original jury trial, the trial court correctly limited the jury's consideration on retrial of an aggravated murder charge to those elements necessary to establish the greater offense." Id. (citing Boots II , 315 Or. at 578 -79 , 848 P.2d 76 ).

2018On review, the defendant assigned error to the "overruling of the demurrer and the overruling of the motion to elect and the motions for a mistrial." Fitzgerald , 267 Or. at 270 , 516 P.2d 1280 .

2018On review, the defendant assigned error to the "overruling of the demurrer and the overruling of the motion to elect and the motions for a mistrial." Fitzgerald , 267 Or. at 270 , 516 P.2d 1280 .

2018On appeal, in Wilson III , the defendant assigned error to the trial court's instruction to "the jury, based on the Oregon Supreme Court's affirmance of a prior appeal of defendant's conviction for other felonies arising from this same incident, that the state had proved those crimes for purposes of the jury's consideration of the aggravated murder charges." Id. at 228 , 173 P.3d 150 .

2018On appeal, in Wilson III , the defendant assigned error to the trial court's instruction to "the jury, based on the Oregon Supreme Court's affirmance of a prior appeal of defendant's conviction for other felonies arising from this same incident, that the state had proved those crimes for purposes of the jury's consideration of the aggravated murder charges." Id. at 228 , 173 P.3d 150 .

2013Logan, 105 Or App at 558 .

2013As an initial matter, we noted that former ORS 13.220(2)(c) had been superseded by ORCP 32, but that “that rule [did] not alter any of the analysis in Derenco” relevant to the requirements for a class action. 89 Or App at 272 .

2010In that case, in which the defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal, we explained that, although we normally look to legislative intent to determine what the legislature intended to require the state to prove, we did not need to do so, because “we conclude[d] that, even assuming that ORS 166.270 requires the state to prove that defendant knew of his status as a felon, the evidence on that point, viewed in the light most favorable to the state and giving the state the benefit of all reasonable inferences, was sufficient for that purpose.” *4

2010Id.

2005For instance, in State v. Cafarelli, 254 Or 73, 76 , 456 P2d 999 (1969), the defendant assigned error to evidentiary rulings made by the trial court.

2005For instance, in State v. Cafarelli, 254 Or 73, 76 , 456 P2d 999 (1969), the defendant assigned error to evidentiary rulings made by the trial court.

2002On appeal, the defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and argued, particularly, that his entry was not “unlawful” within the meaning of ORS 164.215 and ORS 164.205(3)(a). 10 The essence of the defendant’s argument was that subsection (3)(a) did not apply to premises that were open to the public (as the store was): “Defendant argues that because of the words £or’ and ‘otherwise’ the second clause of paragraph (a) refers only to a time when the premises are not open[.]” Ocean, 24 Or App at 293 .

2001At the defendant’s trial, Olea did not testify, and the state neither established nor attempted to establish that Olea was “unavailable” under the first prong of the two-part Confrontation Clause analysis articulated in State v. Campbell, 299 Or 633 , 705 P2d 694 (1985). 4 Nevertheless, several witnesses testified for the state and recounted statements made by Olea immediately following the alleged assault, including a request for help and a statement that, “He’s taking my kids, and he’s been drinking.” *223 On appeal, the defendant assigned error to the admission of Olea’s hearsay statements,

2001At the defendant’s trial, Olea did not testify, and the state neither established nor attempted to establish that Olea was “unavailable” under the first prong of the two-part Confrontation Clause analysis articulated in State v. Campbell, 299 Or 633 , 705 P2d 694 (1985). 4 Nevertheless, several witnesses testified for the state and recounted statements made by Olea immediately following the alleged assault, including a request for help and a statement that, “He’s taking my kids, and he’s been drinking.” *223 On appeal, the defendant assigned error to the admission of Olea’s hearsay statements,

2001We reversed and, in so holding, rejected the state’s argument that Campbell had been implicitly superseded by White v. Illinois, 502 US 346 , 112 S Ct 736 , 116 L Ed 2d 848 (1992).

2001We reversed and, in so holding, rejected the state’s argument that Campbell had been implicitly superseded by White v. Illinois, 502 US 346 , 112 S Ct 736 , 116 L Ed 2d 848 (1992).

2000Finally, in Simonsen , the defendant assigned error to the trial court’s failure to declare a mistrial sua sponte based on the prosecutor’s statements in closing argument, including that “the jurors’ duty was to sentence [the] defendant to death.” 329 Or at 300 .

2000Finally, in Simonsen , the defendant assigned error to the trial court's failure to declare a mistrial sua sponte based on the prosecutor's statements in closing argument, including that "the jurors' duty was to sentence [the] defendant to death." 329 Or. at 300 , 986 P.2d 566 .

1993We reversed. 89 Or.App. 514 , 749 P.2d 1212 (1988).

1993We reversed. 89 Or.App. 514 , 749 P.2d 1212 (1988).

1992After our opinion issued, the Supreme Court decided State v. Williams, 313 Or 19 , 828 P2d 1006 (1992), in which the defendant assigned as error the giving of a jury instruction defining reasonable doubt.

1992After our opinion issued, the Supreme Court decided State v. Williams, 313 Or 19 , 828 P2d 1006 (1992), in which the defendant assigned as error the giving of a jury instruction defining reasonable doubt.

1987The fact of imprisonment is not good cause for the purposes of this subsection.” 3 In State v. Chadwick, 150 Or 645, 650 , 47 P2d 232 (1935), the defendant assigned error to the failure to bring him to trial at the next term of court, as was provided by another former speedy trial statute, Oregon Code 1930, § 13.1602 (now, as amended, ORS 135.747).

1987The fact of imprisonment is not good cause for the purposes of this subsection.” 3 In State v. Chadwick, 150 Or 645, 650 , 47 P2d 232 (1935), the defendant assigned error to the failure to bring him to trial at the next term of court, as was provided by another former speedy trial statute, Oregon Code 1930, § 13.1602 (now, as amended, ORS 135.747).