|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|State of Oregon v. Ian George Vanornum|
|Supreme Court Case 2|
|Neil Francis Byl on behalf of Ian George Vanorum|
Patrick Ebbett on behalf of the State of Oregon
Statement of Issues:
|State of Oregon v. Ian George Vanornum (S060715) (A142341) (appeal from Lane County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 250 Or App 693, 282 P3d 908 (2012)).|
Defendant Ian George Vanornum has been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed his conviction for disorderly conduct in the second degree, concluding that he had not preserved his claim of instructional error for appellate review because he failed adequately to comply with ORCP 59 H.
On review, the issues are:
(1) In the context of excepting to a trial court's refusal to give a requested jury instruction, what does ORCP 59 H(2) mean when it states, "A party shall state with particularity any point of exception to the trial judge"?
(2) Does a party who requests a special jury instruction adequately explain to the trial court why the instruction is proper if (1) the party provides the trial court with a copy of the requested instruction, (2) the purpose of the instruction is clear on its face, (3) the party provides the trial court with legal authority supporting the instruction, and (4) the party argues that the instruction is needed to educate the jury on a point of law in more detail than is covered in the uniform jury instruction?
(3) Does ORCP 59 H govern whether a party preserved for appellate review a trial court's error in instructing or not instructing a jury?
The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: