Title: Charles v. Palomo
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S057493
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: February 19, 2010

FILED: February 19, 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
STELLA A. CHARLES,
personal representative for the
Estate of Kenneth Charles, deceased,
Petitioner on Review,
v.
ANDRES PALOMO, JR.,
Respondent on Review.
(CC 04C17458; CA A133122; SC
S057493)
En Banc
On review from the Court of Appeals.*
Submitted on the briefs December 8, 2009.
Conrad E. Yunker, Conrad E. Yunker, P.C.,
Salem, filed the brief for petitioner on review.  With him on the brief was
Thomas Melville.
Thomas M. Christ, Cosgrave Vergeer Kester
LLP, Portland, filed the brief for respondent on review.
Cody Hoesly, Larkins Vacura LLP, Portland, filed a brief for amicus
curiae Oregon Trial Lawyers Association.
BALMER, J.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is
reversed.  The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is
remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
*Appeal from Marion County Circuit Court, Claudia M. Burton, Judge.  227 Or App 335, 206 P3d 200 (2009).
BALMER, J.
The issue in this personal injury
action is whether, in a jury trial, a plaintiff is entitled to both an initial
closing argument and an opportunity to rebut the defendant's closing argument. 
Plaintiff filed this action for negligence against defendant after the parties
were involved in a car accident.  At the end of the jury trial, plaintiff
presented an initial closing argument to the jury, and defendant followed with
his closing argument.  When the trial court began instructing the jury,
plaintiff requested an opportunity for a rebuttal argument, which the court
denied.  After deliberating, the jury returned a verdict for defendant. 
Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court had erred when it denied him
the opportunity to rebut defendant's closing argument.  The Court of Appeals
affirmed, concluding that plaintiff had failed to preserve the issue.  Charles
v. Palomo, 227 Or App 335, 206 P3d 200 (2009).  We allowed review and now reverse
the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the trial court.
In his action, plaintiff alleged that
defendant had negligently caused a car accident and that plaintiff had suffered
injuries as a result.  At the jury trial, the parties testified regarding the
details of the accident.  Plaintiff testified that he had been driving in his
truck along the highway at night during a heavy rain when there was a car
accident in front of him.  To avoid the accident, he tapped on his brakes and
began slowing down.  "About a couple seconds" after that, defendant
rear-ended plaintiff's truck.  Plaintiff testified that his headlights and
taillights were in good working condition and were turned on at the time of the
accident.  
Defendant told a different story.  He
testified that he was attempting to pass a semi-truck as he was cresting a
hill.  After he drove down the hill, defendant's car and the semi-truck both
hit puddles of water, covering his windshield and blocking his view for several
seconds.  Defendant testified that plaintiff's truck was stalled in the roadway
and that, by the time defendant was able to see the truck, "[t]here was
nothing [he] could do but hit it."  When plaintiff's counsel asked
defendant how he knew that the truck had been stalled, defendant responded,
"The police officer that took the report told me that [plaintiff] told him
that."  Defendant also testified that he did not remember seeing any
lights on plaintiff's truck before or after the collision. 
At the close of the evidence,
plaintiff's counsel presented his closing argument to the jury.  Defense
counsel then presented his closing argument.  Immediately thereafter, the court
began to instruct the jury, and the following exchange ensued:
"[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]:  Rebuttal, Your Honor?
"THE COURT:  Approach.
"(whispered)  You don't get any.
"(Pause)"
The court then showed plaintiff a copy of ORCP 58 B(6), which
we set out and discuss in detail below.(1) 
Plaintiff then responded:
"[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]:  (whispered)  Okay.
"(Pause)
"(whispered)  Thank you.
"(Pause)
"(Unintelligible).
"THE COURT:   (whispered)  I can certainly do
that."(2)
Having denied plaintiff's request for rebuttal, the trial
court then instructed the jury.  The jury deliberated and returned a verdict
for defendant.
After the trial court entered
judgment for defendant, plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to
ORCP 64 B,(3)
arguing that the trial court had erred in denying plaintiff's rebuttal closing
argument.  At the hearing on plaintiff's motion, the trial court first ruled
that the motion had been "deemed denied" by ORCP 64 F(4)
because the court had not ruled on it within 55 days of entry of judgment.  The
court nonetheless addressed the merits of plaintiff's argument "as a
fall-back."  The court concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to a
rebuttal argument and that, in any event, plaintiff had not properly preserved
the issue.
Plaintiff appealed and again argued
that the trial court had erred in denying him a rebuttal argument.  As noted,
the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that plaintiff had not properly
preserved the issue.  The court determined that plaintiff had "merely requested
rebuttal argument" and had failed to "disagree with the [trial]
court's ruling" denying rebuttal.  Charles, 227 Or App at 339.  The
Court of Appeals also refused to exercise its discretion to review the error as
error apparent on the face of the record, concluding, "It is not clear
that the error had any effect on the jury's decision that would warrant a new
trial in this case."  Id. at 341.  Plaintiff petitioned for review
of the Court of Appeals decision, and we allowed review to consider whether
plaintiff was entitled to make a rebuttal closing argument.
On review, plaintiff argues that the
text of ORCP 58 B(6) makes clear that plaintiffs are entitled to both an
initial closing argument and an opportunity to rebut the defendant's closing
argument.  Defendant responds that plaintiff failed to preserve the issue in
the trial court and that, even if plaintiff preserved the error, any error in
denying his rebuttal argument is not reversible error because it did not
substantially affect plaintiff's rights. 
We turn first to defendant's
contention that plaintiff failed to preserve his claim that he was entitled to
a rebuttal argument.  Ordinarily, this court will not consider an issue unless
it was first presented to the trial court.  ORAP 5.45(1).  However, the
determination whether a particular issue was preserved for appeal is a
"practical one"; it will depend on whether the policies behind the
preservation requirement -- judicial efficiency, full development of the
record, and procedural fairness to the parties and the trial court -- are met
in an individual case.  State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333, 340-41, 211 P3d
262 (2009).  Therefore, we will review an issue advanced by a party on review as
long as that party raised the issue below with enough particularity to assure
that the trial court was able to "identify its alleged error" so as
to "consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is
warranted."  State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 343, 15 P3d 22 (2000).  We
conclude that plaintiff did so here.
As noted, when the trial court began
instructing the jury, plaintiff interrupted to request rebuttal.  With that
objection, plaintiff notified the court that he wished to make a rebuttal
argument.  The court then asked the attorneys to approach the bench.  Anticipating
plaintiff's objection, the court had a copy of the rules ready and showed
plaintiff ORCP 58 B(6).  Thus, although plaintiff did not have a chance to
identify the source of his claimed right to rebuttal, the court was aware of
it.  The foregoing demonstrates that the plaintiff apprised the trial court of
the issue (whether plaintiff was entitled to a rebuttal argument) and that the
trial court was aware of the source of plaintiff's claimed right (ORCP 58 B(6)). 
It was not necessary for plaintiff to further expand on his argument and
explain the particulars of why he believed that the rule provided him with a
right to rebuttal.  See State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183, 188, 766 P2d 373
(1988) (raising an issue at trial "ordinarily is essential,"
identifying a source "less so," and making a particular argument
"least" important).  Thus, although plaintiff could have pressed his
argument before the trial judge and provided a clearer or more detailed record
-- and it might have been prudent to do so -- his objection, given the sequence
of events at the close of trial, was sufficient to preserve for appellate
review his claim that the trial court erred in not permitting him to make a rebuttal
closing argument.  
Defendant's preservation argument focuses
on what happened after plaintiff raised the issue, namely, that plaintiff said
"Okay" after the trial court had denied his request for rebuttal.  Defendant
argues that plaintiff did not "object to the denial of rebuttal" or
"otherwise indicate his opposition to the ruling."  Similarly, the
Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff did not preserve his argument because
he did not indicate that he "disagree[d] with the court's ruling."  Charles,
227 Or App at 339.  As we explained above, however, after plaintiff's initial
closing and defendant's closing, the court immediately began instructing the
jury.  That was the point at which plaintiff voiced his objection by asking,
"Rebuttal, Your Honor?"  It was apparent from plaintiff's comment
that he disagreed with the trial court's action in proceeding to instruct the
jury without giving him the opportunity for rebuttal.  The fact that plaintiff made
his request politely and did not use the word "objection" does not
make his objection inadequate.  It is true that plaintiff did not make a
further objection to the court's oral ruling -- denying rebuttal -- once
that ruling had already been made.  But parties are not required to repeat
their objections after the trial court has ruled against them.  See Hitz,
307 Or at 187 (party did not waive objection by "not pressing it in her
oral argument to the trial court").  
For the same reason, we disagree with
the Court of Appeals' implication that, by saying "Okay," plaintiff
effectively withdrew his request for rebuttal.  Plaintiff made his objection
known to the court when he requested rebuttal; when the court denied his
request, plaintiff acknowledged the court's ruling by saying, "Okay.  * *
* Thank you."  He did not withdraw his objection merely because he courteously
accepted the court's ruling rather than further express his disagreement with
it.  See State v. Fanus, 336 Or 63, 83, 79 P3d 847 (2003) (decision not
to repeat objection does not constitute waiver of objection).(5)
We turn, therefore, to the merits of
plaintiff's claim that he was entitled to a rebuttal argument.  The Oregon
Rules of Civil Procedure control the manner of proceedings in civil actions in
circuit court.  ORCP 1 A.  In particular, ORCP 58 B(6) governs the sequence and
timing of the parties' closing arguments.  That rule provides:
"When the evidence is concluded, unless the
case is submitted by both sides to the jury without argument, the plaintiff
shall commence and conclude the argument to the jury.  The plaintiff may waive
the opening argument, and if the defendant then argues the case to the jury,
the plaintiff shall have the right to reply to the argument of the defendant,
but not otherwise."
The first sentence of ORCP 58 B(6) demonstrates
that plaintiffs are entitled to rebut defendants' closing arguments.  The rule
provides that "the plaintiff shall commence and conclude the
argument to the jury."  (Emphasis added.)  In other words, the plaintiff
has the right both to begin the sequence of closing arguments to the
jury and to end the sequence of arguments, "unless the case is submitted
by both sides to the jury without argument."  That is the only
qualification on the plaintiff's right to rebuttal.(6) 
Thus, because the parties here did not waive argument, the rule recognizes the
following sequence of closing arguments:  (1) plaintiff's initial closing
argument; (2) defendant's closing argument; and (3) plaintiff's rebuttal. 
Indeed, our interpretation of ORCP 58
B(6) is so apparent from the text of the rule that this court has accepted that
construction with little discussion.  In State v. Stevens, 311 Or 119,
147-48, 806 P2d 92 (1991), for example, the defendant in a capital case argued
that the prosecution should be limited to one closing argument at the penalty
phase of trial.  This court noted that the identically worded predecessor to
ORCP 58 B(6) -- former ORCP 58 B(4) -- applied.(7) 
Because that rule provided that "the plaintiff shall commence and conclude
the argument to the jury," the court concluded that "the state, as
the plaintiff, ha[d] the right to present a rebuttal argument."  Id. at
148.  Similarly, in State v. McNeely, 330 Or 457, 468, 8 P3d 212 (2000),
this court held that former ORCP 58 B(4) provided the state with that
"right to rebuttal" even on issues for which the state did not bear
the burden of proof.
The trial court acknowledged that,
"if you just read [the first] sentence [of ORCP 58 B(6)], you could say
commence means you make the opening and then you make the last."  However,
the court concluded that the second sentence foreclosed that interpretation by
permitting a plaintiff to make a rebuttal argument if he or she waives the
initial closing argument and the defendant then argues the case to the jury,
"but not otherwise."  Thus, the court determined that "you don't
get to reply to the defense closing unless you waived your opening."  The
court then explained its interpretation of the first sentence:  "[C]ommence
and conclude I guess means you get to finish your opening closing
argument."(8) 
We disagree. 
As described above, the first
sentence of ORCP 58 B(6) describes the ordinary sequence of closing arguments: 
the plaintiff "commence[s]" closing argument, the defendant presents its
closing argument, and the plaintiff "conclude[s]" with a rebuttal
argument.  The second sentence then provides, "The plaintiff may waive the
opening argument, and if the defendant then argues the case to the jury, the
plaintiff shall have the right to reply to the argument of the defendant, but
not otherwise."  The trial court interpreted the second sentence as
providing the only situation in which a plaintiff has a right to rebuttal,
because of the dependent phrase "but not otherwise."  That is, the
court concluded that a plaintiff has a right to rebuttal only if he or she
first waives the initial closing argument and the defendant then presents a
closing argument.
The second sentence of ORCP 58 B(6),
however, pertains only to a particular set of circumstances -- when the
plaintiff has waived the initial closing argument.  In that situation,
the plaintiff may respond to the defendant's argument "if the defendant *
* * argues the case to the jury, * * * but not otherwise."  Thus, the rule
avoids the situation where a plaintiff waives initial closing argument, the
defendant then waives argument, and the plaintiff attempts to make the only closing
argument under the guise of a rebuttal.  When a plaintiff does not waive
the initial closing argument, the first sentence applies, and the plaintiff is
entitled to both commence and conclude closing arguments.(9)
Having concluded that the trial court
erred, we turn to whether that error requires reversal.  We will reverse a
trial court's judgment only if the trial court's error "substantially
affect[ed] the rights of a party."  See ORS 19.415(2) (stating
standard).  For the reasons that follow, we hold that the error here did.
Closing arguments are an integral part
of trial.  They provide the attorneys with their final opportunity to "persuade
the jury to adopt a particular view of the facts."  Ireland v. Mitchell,
226 Or 286, 295, 359 P2d 894 (1961).  It is through closing arguments that the
attorneys are able to fully frame the issues and remind the jury of evidence
that they may have heard days earlier.  Further, arguments give the attorneys a
chance to explain the evidence in narrative form.  That narrative function of
arguments -- the opportunity to tell the story of the case -- is essential to
effective advocacy, and the ability to do so can alter the jury's understanding
of the evidence and ultimately change the outcome of a given case.  
As noted, here, the issue of
liability depended on the jury's credibility determination.  The parties
disputed whether plaintiff's truck had been stopped on the highway when
defendant collided with it; they were the only fact witnesses to testify as to
what happened during the accident.  Plaintiff testified that he had slowed down
and began tapping his brakes when he saw an accident in front of him and that
defendant's vehicle had hit plaintiff's truck while it was still moving. 
Defendant testified that plaintiff's truck had been stalled with no brakes or
warning lights and that, once defendant could see plaintiff's vehicle, it was
too late to stop.  
Much of the closing arguments centered
on the parties' testimony and their credibility.  At one point, defense counsel
explained why the jury should believe defendant's claim that plaintiff's
vehicle had stalled on the highway by reminding them of defendant's testimony
from the day before:
"[W]hen [plaintiff's counsel] asked [defendant], well,
how do you know he stalled.  [Defendant] told you, the police officer told him
when he came back down, he talked to [plaintiff] and [plaintiff] told [the
police officer] he had stalled.  That's how he knows."     
Plaintiff's counsel had not attempted to refute that portion
of defendant's testimony in his initial closing argument.(10) 
He argues that, had he been permitted to rebut defendant's argument, he would
have taken that opportunity to refute the likely accuracy of defendant's
statements.  Specifically, he might have pointed out to the jury that defendant
did not call the police officer to testify, that plaintiff's alleged statement to
the officer was not noted in the police report, and that there was no other
evidence to support defendant's claim, even in defendant's deposition.  Then,
he argues, he could have explained that the jury should not believe defendant's
explanation of the police officer's statements without any supporting evidence,
because defendant had a motive to make up the story.
Instead of giving plaintiff an
opportunity to point out the possible flaws in defendant's argument and
reiterate his own explanation of the facts, the court told plaintiff that he
was not entitled to further argument.  Thus, the last thing that the jury heard
before the jury instructions was defendant's description of the
evidence.  The trial court gave defendant an advantage -- the final argument
before the jury -- to which plaintiff had a right under ORCP 58 B(6).  Given
the importance and persuasive value of closing arguments, as well as the
particular missed opportunities in this case, we conclude that the denial of
rebuttal argument substantially affected plaintiff's rights.
We conclude that plaintiff adequately
preserved his claim and that the trial court erred in denying him the
opportunity to present a rebuttal closing argument.  Because that error
substantially affected plaintiff's rights, we reverse the judgment of the trial
court.
The decision of the Court of Appeals
is reversed.  The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is
remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
1. The
trial record itself does not demonstrate that the court showed plaintiff the
rule.  However, at the hearing on plaintiff's motion for a new trial, the court
explained what happened at trial as follows:
"I began reading jury
instructions.  [Plaintiff's attorney] said, what about my rebuttal.  I brought
counsel up to the side bar, I did put my hand over the microphone with the
intention that the jury not hear our discussion because it was certainly not my
intention, you know, to embarrass anybody in front of the jury or have anybody
in an awkward position in front of the jury, and I said you don't get one and I
showed [plaintiff's attorney] the rule, and [plaintiff's attorney] looked
at the rule and said okay."
(Emphasis added.)  Defendant argues that, in determining what
happened at trial, we should consider only the transcript of the trial itself,
and not the trial court's statement at the later hearing on plaintiff's motion
for a new trial.  However, the uncontested record is sufficient to demonstrate
that the trial court did show plaintiff the rule at trial.  At the hearing on
plaintiff's motion for a new trial, defense counsel did not disagree with the
foregoing description of what happened at trial.  Indeed, defense counsel
specifically stated to the court that, at trial, "you showed [plaintiff's
counsel] the rule you were relying upon, he said okay."  We therefore
consider the colloquy that occurred at the hearing on the motion for a new
trial inasmuch as it aids us in determining that the trial court showed
plaintiff the rule at trial -- an action that would not be apparent from the
record of the trial itself, which captures only sounds.     
2. The
original transcript stated only that, after the court asked the parties to
approach, there was a "pause," after which the court began
instructing the jury.  After trial, however, the parties agreed to correct the
transcript.  We quote the foregoing exchange from the trial court's stipulated
order settling the transcript.    
3. ORCP
64 B provides, in part:
"A former judgment may be set aside and a
new trial granted in an action where there has been a trial by jury on the
motion of the party aggrieved for any of the following causes materially
affecting the substantial rights of such party:
"B(1) Irregularity in the proceedings of
the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court, or abuse of
discretion, by which such party was prevented from having fair trial.
"* * * * *
"B(3) Accident or surprise which ordinary
prudence could not have guarded against.
"* * * * *
"B(6) Error in law occurring at the trial
and objected to or excepted to by the party making the application."
4. ORCP
64 F(1) provides that a motion for new trial shall be heard and determined by the court within 55 days
from the time of the entry of the judgment, and not thereafter, and if not so
heard and determined within said time, the motion shall conclusively be deemed
denied."
5. Defendant
also argues that the record is insufficient for our review because it is
"unintelligible" at a "key point in the proceedings."  The
record indicates that, after plaintiff said "Okay" to the trial
court, he said something more because the transcript states that the audio tape
is "unintelligible."  The trial court then said, "I can
certainly do that."  Defendant argues that we cannot determine whether the
error was preserved without speculating as to what plaintiff said.  As described
above, however, the record is sufficient to demonstrate that plaintiff
adequately raised the issue.  Further, the trial court and the parties all
later explained their recollection of what had happened at trial, and none
remembered plaintiff expressly withdrawing his objection.  We will not presume,
simply because there is an unintelligible point in the audio tape, that
plaintiff expressly withdrew his objection or otherwise directed the trial
court away from the issue of rebuttal.
6. The
trial court may also alter the sequence of events "for good cause stated
in the record."  ORCP 58 B.  Here, however, the trial court simply
interpreted the rule as prohibiting plaintiff from making a rebuttal closing
argument. 
7. Although
Stevens was a criminal case, ORS 136.330(1) made certain rules of civil
procedure, including former ORCP 58 B(4), applicable in criminal
proceedings.
8. On
review, defendant does not argue that the rule should be so interpreted. 
Instead, he argues only that plaintiff failed to preserve the issue and that
any error in denying his rebuttal argument was harmless.            
9. Indeed,
the second sentence supports that interpretation, by providing that plaintiffs
"may waive the opening argument."  It therefore implies that,
ordinarily, plaintiffs are entitled to two separate closing arguments -- an
"opening" closing argument and a rebuttal argument. 
10. Plaintiff
concedes that defense counsel's closing argument accurately described
defendant's testimony.  However, as plaintiff's counsel later explained, he had
forgotten about that part of defendant's testimony and so had failed to raise
the issue in his initial closing argument.