State v. Durando, 331 P.3d 1095

Defendant Durando appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana; this court reversed that conviction but otherwise affirmed the trial court.
At trial the state moved to exclude a defendant exhibit (a website printout) for lack of adequate authentication; the trial court granted the motion.
On appeal Durando argued he had authenticated the printout by "inviting the trial court to view the website and verify that the printout accurately represented the information contained therein."
In the original appellate opinion the court rejected that argument as unpreserved and used language suggesting a stricter preservation standard (questioning whether every reasonable judge would have understood Durando's request).
Durando petitioned for reconsideration, arguing the court applied an overly severe preservation standard instead of the ordinary preservation inquiry from Peeples v. Lampert.
The court granted reconsideration, concluded its prior wording misstated the preservation standard, modified three sentences of the original opinion to accurately reflect preservation analysis, but reached the same outcome: Durando's website-invitation argument was not preserved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Durando preserved the contention that the trial court should visit the website to authenticate a printout	(State) The court need not address an unpreserved claim; the record shows no clear request to visit the website	Durando: he sufficiently authenticated the printout by inviting the trial court to view the website itself	Not preserved: defendant did not clearly ask the court to visit the website or otherwise give opponent and court enough notice to respond
What preservation standard applies on appeal	(State) Use ordinary preservation test (did appellant give trial court chance to consider/rule)	Durando argued the court applied an overly severe standard in original opinion	Court reaffirmed ordinary preservation standard (Peeples) but found same result under it
Whether the appellate opinion's language required modification	(State) Original phrasing misstated the standard and should be corrected	Durando requested reconsideration and correction of wording	Court modified three sentences in prior opinion to reflect proper preservation analysis while adhering to the original judgment

Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or. 209 (2008) (articulates ordinary preservation standard: give trial court chance to consider and rule)
State v. Walker, 350 Or. 540 (2011) (preservation requires fair notice to opponent and trial court)
State v. Durando, 262 Or. App. 299 (2014) (original appellate opinion modified on reconsideration; addresses authentication and preservation)