that ruling, together with the court’s further statement that it was “inappropriate for the— to offer it as evidence,” as an indication that it would have been futile to make a further offer of proof, because the court believed that the record was fixed in 1995. We do not read the court’s comments so restrictively. Rather, it appears that — after rejecting the offer of the documents into evidence — the court relied on its previous finding, based on Dean’s testimony during the 1995 hearing, that Moore had made notes of their conversation. Nothing that the court said constituted a clear legal ruling that it would exclude the proffered documents from evidence if an adequate foundation for their admission had been laid. Cf. State v. Olmstead, 310 Or 455, 461, 800 P2d 277 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Marcoulier v. Umsted, 105 Or App 260, 262,
holding defendant failed to preserve burden of proof issue for appeal holding defendant failed to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence that was the subject of the motion in limine where defendant failed to object to evidence when offered at trial holding that an adequate offer of proof is normally required to preserve error when a trial court excludes evidence holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue that issue is abandoned holding that an offer of proof is not necessary to preserve an issue for appeal when the asserted error does not relate primarily to the admissibility of particular evidence but involves an underlying legal ruling that results in the exclusion of evidence as a consequence