State of Oregon, Respondent on Review v. Ian George Vanornum, Petitioner on Review

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court held that ORCP 59 H—which ORS 136.330(2) makes applicable to criminal actions—does not govern preservation of instructional error for purposes of appellate review and does not preclude an appellate court from reviewing a claim under the court's traditional plain error doctrine; the rule prescribes trial-court exception procedure, leaving the announcement and development of preservation standards to the appellate courts, as confirmed by the rule's text, context (ORS 1.735(1) and ORCP 1 A), and unequivocal drafting history. Because Oliphant disapproved UCrJI 1227 generally, giving it was plain error—obvious, an error of law, and apparent on the record—but the discretionary decision whether to review that error rests with the Court of Appeals as the error-correcting tribunal, and defendant's challenge to the refusal of his requested 'unreasonable physical force' instruction must be tested against the court's preservation jurisprudence rather than ORCP 59 H(2). The court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings. Judge Landau, concurring and joined by Judge Brewer, agreed with the court's opinion in its entirety but wrote separately to stress that council-promulgated ORCP rules are statutes only when affirmatively enacted by the legislature—a distinction that independently explains why ORCP 59 H could not bind appellate courts.