Court Opinion

ID: 9613414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:16:50.520241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:28.783194
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, J.,
dissenting.
The majority holds that defendant waived his right to object to the court’s ruling authorizing the joinder of separate traffic complaints under ORS 132.560(2), because he said:
“Alright, now I see. I didn’t notice that. But [the deputy-district attorney] wasn’t arguing that point earlier.”
The majority says:
“State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183, 766 P2d 373 (1988), does not require a different result. In Hitz, the court said that failure to press the argument was not waiver, once the issue had been raised. 307 Or at 187. Here, defendant did not merely fail to press the argument; he apparently agreed with the court’s analysis.” 109 Or App at 602 n 3. (Emphasis supplied.)
In the colloquy with the trial court, defendant first pointed out that, because there were several accusatory instruments, ORS 132.560(1) was inapplicable. The court then referred to ORS 132.560(2), which permits atrial court to consolidate two or more indictments for trial, and ruled, “I can’t believe that there is a legislative intent to distinguish complaints from indictments for these purposes.” Defendant continued to assert his argument regarding subsection (1). The court reiterated its reference to subsection (2). Defendant’s response, which the majority characterizes as a “tacit, if not actual, agreement’ ’ with the court’s ruling, is an. equivocal response to the court’s reference to subsection (2) and nothing more.
In State v. Hitz, supra, the court said:
“On defendant’s appeal, the state contended that defendant had waived this argument by not pressing it in her oral argument to the trial court. That is no waiver, once an issue has been raised.” 307 Or at 187. (Emphasis supplied.)
*606The majority’s holding is wrong under Hitz. Defendant generally raised the issue of the inapplicability of ORS 132.560 as authority for the consolidation of the traffic complaints for trial. The court ruled sua sponte that the consolidation was authorized under ORS 132.560(2), thereby preempting any argument on that ground. The implication in Hitz is that something more affirmative than the failure to press an argument is required to constitute a waiver of an issue already raised. See State ex rel State of Wash. v. Dilworth, 89 Or App 158, 747 P2d 387 (1987), rev den 305 Or 433 (1988). Defendant acknowledged the existence of a statute that had not been previously argued and made a different argument. In the words of Hitz, “that is no waiver.” In the light of the state’s concession that ORS 132.560 does not authorize the joinder of separate traffic complaints, I would reverse.