Klein v. Keller

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the defendant’s assignment of error was preserved where the state objected on specific grounds, because “the trial court had a chance to consider the issue” and the state would not be “taken by surprise”
• explaining that OEC 611(2) maintains “[t]hat broad view of the scope of cross-examination”
• rejecting the contention that the defendant was required to make an offer of proof to preserve a claim that the trial court erred in excluding evidence “because the trial court and the prosecutor were aware of the substance of the testimony that defendant would elicit”
• “Whether a party adequately presented a contention to the trial court varies depending on the nature of the claim or argument.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).