Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RALPH ADRIAN WYATT, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2001-04-25
Citations: 173 Or. App. 646
Docket Number: CR9501237; CA A95425
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RALPH ADRIAN WYATT, Appellant.
Judges: Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Deits, Chief Judge, and Wollheim, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 173
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
Submitted on remand February 23,
affirmed April 25, 2001
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RALPH ADRIAN WYATT, Appellant.
(CR9501237; CA A95425)
22 P3d 1232
Ronald H. Hoevet and Hoevet & Snyder, P. C. for appellant.
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General, and Ann Kelley, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Deits, Chief Judge, and Wollheim, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
This case is before us on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court. State u. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 15 P3d 22 (2000). The Supreme Court reversed our determination that the trial court had committed reversible error in excluding the testimony of a defense expert witness as a sanction for violation of the reciprocal criminal discovery statute. Id. Defendant's only remaining assignment of error on remand is that the trial court erroneously polled the jury. However, defendant did not raise and preserve any objection to the trial court's action, and the court's action did not constitute error apparent on the face of the record in that the alleged impropriety of the court's polling is not a matter that "is obvious, not reasonably in dispute." State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355, 800 P2d 259 (1990).
Affirmed.