Case Reviews/Oregon Appellate Court, January 5, 2022

 <summary hidden>
EVIDENCE - Child-sexual-abuse hearsay exception
INTERFERENCE WITH MAKING A REPORT - Sufficiency
EVIDENCE - Business-records hearsay exception

</summary> 

'''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA'''

'''EVIDENCE - Child-sexual-abuse hearsay exception'''<br>Importance: 2/5

"Child-declarant," for purposes of the child-sexual-abuse hearsay exception, means a person younger than 18 at the time the statement was made - age at the time of trial is unimportant. Affirmed. 

A prior version of the OEC 403(18a) was more susceptible to defendant's interpretation, but that did not help in construing the current text. The child-declarant testified at trial, so the court's constitutional analysis was minimal.

The court also reversed the convictions that were based on nonunanimous verdicts.

[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A173492 State v. Juarez-Hernandez] 316 Or App 741 (January 5, 2022) (Aoyagi) (Washington County, Bailey)

'''INTERFERENCE WITH MAKING A REPORT - Sufficiency'''<br>Importance: 1/5

A 'report,' for purposes of ORS 165.572(1), includes an ongoing conversation between a 911 caller and the dispatcher. Affirmed.

The victim called 911 and gave her name, defendant's name, and the location before defendant took her phone. The court rejected defendant's argument that he did not interfere with the report because it had been made, noting that the dispatcher asked to talk to the victim after defendant took the phone.

The court also rejected defendant's argument that the court should have given a special instruction about disorderly conduct, and dismissed a challenge to the revocation of his probation in another case as moot.

[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A168116 State v. Leers] 316 Or App 762 (January 5, 2022) (Powers) (Multnomah County, Immergut)

'''EVIDENCE - Business-records hearsay exception - '''<br>Importance: 2/5

911 caller's report that he saw defendant leaving a bar is not a business record. Reversed and remanded.

Because the trial court did not expressly determine whether the 911 call was admissible "as an excited  utterance; for the purpose of identity;  [or] to show the effect on the listener," as the state argued, the matter was remanded to resolve those issues.

[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A171200 State v. Kloeck] 316 Or App 804 (January 5, 2022) (Per curiam) (Lincoln County, Benjamin)
{{wl-publish: 2022-01-07 10:13:57 -0800 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin  Johnson }}