State v. Polk, 2026 Ore. App. LEXIS 1326 (Or. Ct. App. 2026)

The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a disorderly conduct conviction because of the trial court’s denial of defense counsel’s request to make an offer of proof. The court stated in relevant part:

An offer of proof “assure[s] that the trial court can make an informed decision”; “permits the parties to raise additional arguments, if appropri-ate[;] and gives the court an opportunity to reconsider its ruling and correct any error.” State v. Olmstead, 310 Or 455, 461, 800 P2d 277 (1990). Importantly, for our purposes, it allows appellate courts “to determine whether it was error to exclude the evidence and whether any error was likely to have affected the result of the case.” State v. Affeld, 307 Or 125, 128, 764 P2d 220 (1988); see also State v. Powers, 323 Or App 553, 569, 523 P3d 1112 (2023), vac’d and rem’don other grounds, 372 Or 812, 558 P3d 847 (2024) (explaining that, absent an offer of proof, an appellate court is left to speculate as to what the excluded testimony would have been).