context of an unpreserved challenge in Oregon

2025In the context of an unpreserved challenge to a prosecutor’s statements in argument, the challenged prosecutorial statements must be plainly improper, id., and “to satisfy the plain-error requirement that the alleged error be ‘one of law,’ a defendant must prove that the prosecutor’s comments were not just ‘improper,’ but ‘so prejudicial as to have denied [the] defendant a fair trial.’ ” State v. Perez, 373 Or 591, 605 , 568 P3d 940 (2025) (quoting Chitwood, 370 Or at 312 (brackets in Perez)).

2025In the context of an unpreserved challenge to a prosecutor’s statements in argument, the challenged prosecutorial statements must be plainly improper, id., and “to satisfy the plain-error requirement that the alleged error be ‘one of law,’ a defendant must prove that the prosecutor’s comments were not just ‘improper,’ but ‘so prejudicial as to have denied [the] defendant a fair trial.’ ” State v. Perez, 373 Or 591, 605 , 568 P3d 940 (2025) (quoting Chitwood, 370 Or at 312 (brackets in Perez)).

2008We need not make that determination here, where, in the context of an unpreserved claim of error, the question before us is whether the legal point raised is “obvious,” that is, “not reasonably in dispute.” Brown, 310 Or at 355 .

2008We need not make that determination here, where, in the context of an unpreserved claim of error, the question before us is whether the legal point raised is "obvious," that is, "not reasonably in dispute." Brown, 310 Or. at 355 . 800 P.2d 259 .

2006This case thus presents, in a preserved posture, the same issue that we considered in the context of an unpreserved claim of error in State v. Vigil, 197 Or App 407 , 106 P3d 656 , adh’d to on recons, 199 Or App 525 , 112 P3d 441 , rev den, 339 Or 156 (2005).

2006This case thus presents, in a preserved posture, the same issue that we considered in the context of an unpreserved claim of error in State v. Vigil, 197 Or App 407 , 106 P3d 656 , adh’d to on recons, 199 Or App 525 , 112 P3d 441 , rev den, 339 Or 156 (2005).

2006In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 490 , 120 S Ct 2348 , 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), the United States Supreme Court held that, “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” In Blakely , the Court held that the “prescribed statutory maximum” sentence “for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.

2006In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 490 , 120 S Ct 2348 , 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), the United States Supreme Court held that, “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” In Blakely , the Court held that the “prescribed statutory maximum” sentence “for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.

2006This case thus presents, in a preserved posture, the same issue that we considered in the context of an unpreserved claim of error in State v. Vigil, 197 Or App 407 , 106 P3d 656 , adh’d to on recons, 199 Or App 525 , 112 P3d 441 , rev den, 339 Or 156 (2005).

2006This case thus presents, in a preserved posture, the same issue that we considered in the context of an unpreserved claim of error in State v. Vigil, 197 Or App 407 , 106 P3d 656 , adh’d to on recons, 199 Or App 525 , 112 P3d 441 , rev den, 339 Or 156 (2005).

2006This case thus presents, in a preserved posture, the same issue that we considered in the context of an unpreserved claim of error in State v. Vigil, 197 Or App 407 , 106 P3d 656 , adh’d to on recons, 199 Or App 525 , 112 P3d 441 , rev den, 339 Or 156 (2005).