State v. Barajas, 268 P.3d 732

Defendant Barajas was convicted of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine, unlawful possession of methamphetamine, and first-degree child neglect in Oregon.
The trial court stated it would waive closing argument after denying defense cross-examination of a key witness and cutting off defense presentation.
Defense attempted to present closing argument to offer her view of the evidence, but the court immediately ruled it would not entertain closing argument.
Defense argued the denial of closing argument violated her right to present argument and to have the trial court consider the evidence fairly.
Appeals court addressed preservation of error, noting that preservation standards may be relaxed when the trial court clearly and unequivocally denies an opportunity to present argument.
The court reversed and remanded for the denial of closing argument, determining the issue rendered the trial fundamentally unfair.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of closing argument was reversible error.	Barajas preserved error by attempting to present closing argument after the court waived it.	State argues preservation required explicit objection or request; waiver could foreclose review.	Yes; denial was reversible error requiring reversal and remand.
Whether preservation standards required more objection given court’s premature waiver.	Preservation did not require further objection because court immediately denied closing argument.	Standard requires timely objection; defense failed to object post-waiver.	Preservation did not require more; defendant was not obligated to object further.
Whether the trial court’s handling of closing argument affected the defendant’s trial rights.	Denial of closing argument prevented defendant from presenting a full view of the evidence.	Right to closing argument was violated, impairing credibility assessment and defense presentation.	Yes; trial was affected and rights were substantially affected.

Lovins v. State, 177 Or. App. 534 (2001) (preservation when trial court denies closing argument warrants review)
State v. Hitz, 307 Or. 183 (1988) (procedural fairness and preservation concepts)
McCarthy v. Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc., 327 Or. 84 (1998) (preservation principles in trial rulings)
State v. Olmstead, 310 Or. 455 (1990) (record shows futility of offering evidence when trial court excludes class of evidence)
State v. George, 337 Or. 329 (2004) (reasonableness of preservation when trial court signals ruling in advance)
Charles v. Palomo, 347 Or. 695 (2010) (objection sufficiency determined by opponent's behavior and trial court's ruling, not labeling)