Stella A. Charles, personal representative for the Estate of Kenneth Charles v. Andres Palomo, Jr., 347 Or. 695

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court held that ORCP 58 B(6) entitles a plaintiff in a jury trial to make both an initial closing argument and a rebuttal argument, unless the parties submit the case without argument. The court further held that the plaintiff preserved the issue by requesting rebuttal and that the denial substantially affected the plaintiff's rights. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and the circuit court judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff preserved the issue for appellate review by requesting rebuttal at the close of argument, thereby informing the trial court of the claimed right and the alleged error; he was not required to repeat the objection after the court ruled against him.
2. When the plaintiff does not waive closing argument and the defendant argues to the jury, ORCP 58 B(6) entitles the plaintiff to both an initial closing argument and a rebuttal closing argument.
3. The denial of plaintiff's rebuttal closing argument substantially affected plaintiff's rights and required reversal of the judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff preserved for appellate review his claim that the trial court erred by denying him a rebuttal closing argument.
2. Whether ORCP 58 B(6) entitles a plaintiff who presents an initial closing argument to a rebuttal closing argument after the defendant's closing argument.
3. Whether denial of the rebuttal argument substantially affected plaintiff's rights so as to require reversal.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded