context: As noted, defendant's argument before the trial court was that the state had failed to satisfy the requirements of the exception. That did not preserve an argument that the case he had acknowledged as providing the relevant analysis was wrongly decided.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 282 Or App 414, 419
citation_a.parenthetical: argument not preserved when "neither the state nor the trial court had any reason to believe that [the] defendant was" making that argument, "the state had no opportunity" to respond to it, "and the trial court had no reason to rule on that issue"
citation_a.sentence: See State v. Lockridge, 282 Or App 414, 419, 386 P3d 96 (2016) (argument not preserved when “neither the state nor the trial court had any reason to believe that [the] defendant was” making that argument, “the state had no opportunity” to respond to it, “and the trial court had no reason to rule on that issue”); see also State v. Reyes-Camarena, 330 Or 431, 440, 7 P3d 522 (2000) (holding that the appellant failed to preserve a claim of error that was based on an argument that precedent was wrongly decided, where in the trial court, the appellant had conceded that the precedent was controlling).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 330 Or 431, 440
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that the appellant failed to preserve a claim of error that was based on an argument that precedent was wrongly decided, where in the trial court, the appellant had conceded that the precedent was controlling
citation_b.sentence: See State v. Lockridge, 282 Or App 414, 419, 386 P3d 96 (2016) (argument not preserved when “neither the state nor the trial court had any reason to believe that [the] defendant was” making that argument, “the state had no opportunity” to respond to it, “and the trial court had no reason to rule on that issue”); see also State v. Reyes-Camarena, 330 Or 431, 440, 7 P3d 522 (2000) (holding that the appellant failed to preserve a claim of error that was based on an argument that precedent was wrongly decided, where in the trial court, the appellant had conceded that the precedent was controlling).