(Emphasis in original.) Second, the state contends that Oregon courts have upheld the application of issue preclusion against defendants in criminal cases, citing State v. Gipson, 234 Or.App. 316, 320–21, 227 P.3d 836, rev. den., 349 Or. 173, 243 P.3d 468 (2010), and State v. Boots, 315 Or. 572, 579, 848 P.2d 76 (1993) (Boots II ), and that the cases upon which defendant relies have been undermined by the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517, 126 S.Ct. 1226, 163 L.Ed.2d 1112 (2006). Accordingly, the state argues, we should reject defendant's assertion that his constitutional jury-trial rights barred the application of issue preclusion and that the issue on appeal should be limited to whether the requirements for issue preclusion were satisfied in this case.

We review a trial court's ruling on issue preclusion for errors of law. State v. Gipson, 234 Or.App. 316, 321, 227 P.3d 836, rev. den., 349 Or. 173, 243 P.3d 468 (2010). The doctrine of issue preclusion applies in criminal cases and bars a party from challenging an issue where the following requirements are satisfied:

October 21, 2010. On review from the 234 Or. App. 316. Petitions for Review Denied.

"We review the trial court's sentencing determinations for errors of law[.]" State v. Gipson, 234 Or.App. 316, 318, 227 P.3d 836, rev den, 349 Or. 173 (2010). Here, defendant argues that the state needed to plead, and the jury needed to specifically find, that he "threatened to cause physical injury" to N before the trial court could categorize his coercion conviction at crime category 7.