State v. Skotland, 549 P.3d 534

Defendant, Jeffery Jerald Skotland, was charged with unlawful purchase of a firearm, false information during firearm transfer, and attempted felon in possession of a firearm, after checking “no” to a felony conviction question despite having prior felonies.
At trial, Skotland claimed he believed his prior convictions had been expunged based on advice from an unnamed attorney and lacking documentation due to a fire.
Prior to closing arguments, defense made a preemptive objection to prohibit the state from making "burden-shifting" arguments regarding Skotland's failure to provide expungement evidence.
The trial court mostly agreed with defense counsel's legal position and provided guidelines for permissible closing argument, to which the defense did not object.
During closing, the prosecutor commented on the lack of evidence and the unnamed attorney; defense did not object contemporaneously but argued on appeal that this constituted improper burden-shifting.
The Court of Appeals found the issue preserved based on the preemptive objection and reversed the conviction, but the Supreme Court vacated and remanded, holding preservation failed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the alleged "burden-shifting" by the prosecutor improper?	The closing argument was permissible commentary on evidence, not burden-shifting.	Prosecutor's comments in closing improperly shifted the burden of proof to defendant.	Not reached on the merits; preservation of error was dispositive.
Was the issue of improper "burden-shifting" preserved at trial?	Preemptive objection did not preserve the issue; no further objections were made at trial.	Preemptive objection sufficed to preserve the argument for appeal.	Issue was not preserved; Court of Appeals erred in reviewing the merits.

State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335 (appellate courts must independently assess preservation regardless of party arguments)
State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183 (explains the requirements for preservation)
State v. Olmstead, 310 Or 455 (preemptive objections can in some circumstances preserve an issue)
State v. Foster, 296 Or 174 (explains rationale and role of preemptive objections and motions in limine)