State v. Perez, 568 P.3d 940

Ivan Rosalio Mendez Perez was convicted in Oregon state court of several offenses after an incident at a Fred Meyer store.
At trial, the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing allegedly included comments suggesting the trial might not involve genuine factual disputes, that the state deserved "due process of your consideration," and remarks on the purpose of trials.
Perez did not object or ask for a curative instruction during trial, raising the prosecutor’s statements as plain error for the first time on appeal.
The Court of Appeals reversed his conviction on grounds that the prosecutor’s comments were plainly improper and so prejudicial that no instruction could cure them under the standard in State v. Chitwood.
The Oregon Supreme Court granted review to clarify the plain-error rule for unpreserved claims based on prosecutor argument.
The Supreme Court held that, in context, the prosecutor’s comments were not "plainly improper" or obviously so prejudicial as to deny Perez a fair trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prosecutor’s closing argument comments were plainly improper	State argued the comments were not improper or prejudicial, and a curative instruction could have sufficed if needed.	Perez argued the comments denigrated the right to trial and distorted the burden of proof, making them plainly improper.	Not obviously improper; ambiguity means not "plain error."
Whether, if comments were improper, they were so prejudicial as to deny a fair trial (plain error)	State: Not so prejudicial that an instruction could not cure; no plain error.	Perez: Comments were like those in Chitwood—incurable by instruction and thus plain error.	Not so prejudicial as to require reversal on plain-error grounds.
Applicability of State v. Chitwood’s plain-error framework	State: Chitwood’s high bar not met here; no plain error established.	Perez: Chitwood applies and should result in reversal here too.	Chitwood applies, but comments do not meet its high plain-error bar.
Whether appellate courts should exercise discretion to reverse for unpreserved error	State: Not warranted, especially since comments were not clearly improper.	Perez: Gravity of error and Chitwood precedent compelling in favor of reversal.	Discretion not exercised because no plain error was found.

State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305 (Or. 2022) (clarifies plain-error review for prosecutor argument—error must be egregiously prejudicial and plainly incapable of cure)
State v. Davis, 345 Or 551 (Or. 2008) (recounts when refusal to declare a mistrial is reversible error)
State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614 (Or. 2013) (sets the standard for what constitutes "plain error" on appeal)
State v. Smallwood, 277 Or 503 (Or. 1977) (comments on the constitutional error of referring to defendant’s exercise of rights in trial argument)