State v. Rubio, 273 P.3d 238

Defendants were convicted of first-degree robbery, third-degree assault, and first-degree burglary in a context where operability of a gun used in the robbery was central to the deadly-weapon theory.
During cross-examination Norton was asked about where the gun went after being secreted, but the court deemed the inquiry collateral and limited it.
The gun was eventually recovered and determined operable; defense theories hinged on whether the weapon was a deadly weapon at the time of the robbery.
Norton testified he later turned the gun over to officers after retrieving it from an unknown location, with the location and custodian being unknown to the defense.
The trial court permitted some inquiry about the gun’s condition but refused to compel Norton to disclose the identity of the person who possessed the gun after the crime, deeming it collateral and potentially confusing.
Judgments incorrectly included a no-contact-with-victim provision; the court later remanded to delete that term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether cross-examination about the gun’s custodial history was admissible	Norton’s custodial history bears on operability and the deadly-weapon issue.	Inquiry about identity of the possessor after the crime is not collateral and is probative.	Court did not abuse discretion; evidence was collateral and confusing.
Whether the trial court erred by including no-contact terms in the judgments	No-contact provisions may be permissible under post-prison supervision authorities.	No-contact terms were beyond authority and constitute reversible error.	Plain error; remanded to delete erroneous terms.
Whether the cross-examination limitation prejudiced the defense	Limitation foreclosed defense from challenging operability evidence.	Limitation prevented confusion and kept collateral issues from misleading the jury.	No abuse of discretion; limitation proper under OEC 403.
Whether the error requires resentencing	Error in judgment terms affects sentencing framework.	No sentencing authority to impose no-contact conditions; resentencing not needed beyond deletions.	Remand with instructions to delete erroneous terms; otherwise affirmed.

State v. Johnson, 342 Or 596 (Or. 2007) (recitation of facts in light most favorable to state on jury trial)
State v. Langmayer, 239 Or App 600 (Or. App. 2010) (no-contact provisions in judgments reversible error)
State v. Edson, 329 Or 127 (Or. 1999) (remand when sentencing error; scope depends on options on resentencing)
State v. Rodvelt, 187 Or App 128 (Or. App. 2003) (sentencing remand where errors may affect other sentences)
State v. Cox, 337 Or 477 (Or. 2004) (exclusion of evidence as distracting or weak inference)
State v. Holterman, 69 Or App 509 (Or. App. 1984) (exclude speculative circumstantial evidence to support theory)
State v. Williams, 313 Or 19 (Or. 1992) (appellate review of trial court discretion under OEC 403)