Reid Technique, Forfeiture by Wrongdoing and the Admissibility of the Basis for Your Psych Expert's Opinion
by: Ryan • June 22, 2012 • no comments
State of Oregon v. Tyke Thomas Supanchick (S060017) (A139011) (appeal from Lane County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 245 Or App 651, 263 P3d 378 (2011)).
Defendant Tyke Thomas Supanchick has been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed various evidentiary rulings by the trial court, along with defendant's convictions for aggravated murder, burglary I, and attempted coercion.
On review, the issues raised by defendant are:
(1) Under what circumstances are a deceased victim's hearsay statements admissible under the "forfeiture by wrongdoing" exceptions codified as OEC 804(3)(g) (the general forfeiture exception) and OEC 804(3)(f) (the murder forfeiture exception)?
(2) Does the introduction of statements under Oregon's forfeiture by wrongdoing exceptions (OEC 804(3)(f) & (g)), without an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, violate Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution?
(3) Does the introduction of the victim's statements under Oregon's forfeiture by wrongdoing exceptions (OEC 804(3)(f) & (g)), without an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, satisfy the Confrontation Clause requirements under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
(4) If defendant calls an expert witness who testifies that he diagnosed defendant with post traumatic stress disorder, and then, during cross-examination, the expert indicates that he relied on e-mails in formulating his opinion, has defendant opened the door to the introduction of the specific content of those e-mails?
(5) Is expert testimony that the police employed a specific interview technique when they obtained defendant's confession relevant to whether defendant's statements were voluntary?
(6) Is testimony that police action might have had an impact on defendant's state of mind relevant to a murder case in which the primary issue of contention is defendant's intent?
