Background
Trinity Ann McKaig was convicted in Union County Circuit Court of two counts of unlawful use of a vehicle under ORS 164.135 and one count of resisting arrest under ORS 162.315. At sentencing, the trial court imposed supervised probation with standard statutory conditions, including a requirement that McKaig “[o]bey all laws, municipal, county, state and federal, and in circumstances in which state and federal law conflict, obey state law.” The state had recommended these standard conditions during sentencing, and McKaig’s counsel responded that the recommendation was an appropriate resolution.
McKaig appealed her convictions, raising two assignments of error. Her central argument was that the probation condition requiring obedience to all laws violated the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution, which establishes federal law as the supreme law of the land.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed McKaig’s convictions and upheld the probation condition. The court first determined that McKaig had not properly preserved her Supremacy Clause argument for appeal because she failed to object to the probation condition during the sentencing hearing. Since the issue was not preserved, the court reviewed for plain error only.
On the merits, the court found that any error in imposing the condition would not be plain. The court relied on its recent decision in State v. McClintock-Perez, 346 Or App 34 (2025), which rejected an identical constitutional challenge to the same probation language. Following McClintock-Perez, the court concluded that the legal question was reasonably in dispute and not obvious—a requirement for establishing plain error. The probation condition at issue is a standard statutory provision required by ORS 137.540(1)(h), and its constitutionality has not been clearly established.
Key Takeaways
- Standard probation conditions requiring obedience to all laws do not violate the Supremacy Clause and are constitutionally sound under Oregon law.
- Defendants must object to probation conditions at sentencing to preserve constitutional arguments for appeal; failure to object limits review to plain error.
- Under plain error review, a probation condition will not be found erroneous unless the error is obvious and not reasonably subject to dispute.
Why It Matters
This decision provides clarity for Oregon courts, prosecutors, and defense counsel on the validity of standard probation language that may appear to conflict with the Supremacy Clause. Many jurisdictions impose similar conditions requiring probationers to obey all laws, and McKaig’s challenge raised a question that could affect sentencing practices statewide. The court’s affirmance signals that such conditions are constitutionally permissible in Oregon.
The decision also underscores the importance of timely objections at sentencing. By failing to object during the hearing—despite the state’s explicit recommendation of standard conditions—McKaig forfeited her ability to challenge the condition under a more favorable standard of review, limiting her appellate remedy to the narrow plain error exception.