A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Library Collections

Webinars & Podcasts
Motions
Disclaimer

Oregon Supreme Court 12-17-10

From OCDLA Library of Defense
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Abassos • December 16, 2010 • no comments

Read the full article for details about the following new cases:

  • Unconstitutionally Obtained Statements - Retrial or Harmless Error
  • OEC 404(4)
  • Relevance - Defendant's Theory of the Case


=

Unconstitutionally Obtained Statements - Retrial or Harmless Error===

The question in this pair of joined cases is whether the State may use defendant's trial testimony about unconstitutionally obtained statements against a defendant when the statements are erroneously admitted and the case goes up on appeal or afterwards at a retrial. The rule: neither unconstitutionally obtained statements nor defendant's trial testimony about them may be used against a defendant either (a) on appeal to determine whether non-exclusion was harmless or (b) on retrial. The exception: the court need not exclude trial testimony of the defendant if it can determine from the record that such testimony did not refute, explain or qualify the erroneously admitted pretrial statements. The exception is to be applied objectively by taking into account the totality of the circumstances. State v. Moore/Coen

OEC 404(4)

Oregon rule of evidence 404(4) is constitutional despite the fact that it is written to benefit only the prosecution against the defendant and may not be used by the defendant against a prosecution witness. Here, the trial judge had admitted evidence of a DUII diversion class but excluded a separate DUII conviction in a DUII manslaughter case because "it is clearly being offered to show defendant's bad character or propensity". The Supreme Court rules that 404(4) applied and, therefore, it doesn't matter that the evidence is prejudicial or that it is character evidence if it is at all relevant for another purpose. Here, according to the Court, it is clearly relevant to prove recklessness, in the same way as the prior diversion was relevant. Thus, the conviction should have been admitted with a limiting instruction that the jury should only consider it for noncharacter purposes. Though not at issue in this case, it is worth keeping in mind that 404(4) isn't all-encompassing: "in all events, no evidence may be admitted that would violate state or federal constitutional standards." State v. Coen.

Relevance - Defendant's Theory of the Case

It was reversible error for the trial judge to refuse to admit an earlier violent statement by the person who defendant was blaming in a fight turned stabbing murder. Basically, everyone agreed that the other person had convinced defendant to join him in a fight and that the other person had a knife. The only question was who had done the stabbing. Defendant offered a statement made by the other person at a bar 90 minutes before the fight in which the other person said he was going to "slash" the bartender's son. The Court finds that the statement goes to the state of mind of the other person - that he was generally in an angry or violent-prone mood. Moreover, the error was not a harmless one because there was evidence cutting both ways regarding who was the stabber. It may very well have been this evidence that would have pushed the jury into reasonable doubt. Reversed. State v. Salas-Juarez